Next Article in Journal
Pan-Immune Inflammation Value and Clinical Outcomes in Subacute Sclerosing Panencephalitis: A Retrospective Study
Previous Article in Journal
Epizootiology of African Swine Fever in the Croatian Wild Boar Population and the Estimation of the Surviving Dynamics (2023–2024)
Previous Article in Special Issue
Complete Sequence Analysis of Grapevine Leafroll-Associated Virus 4 and Interactions Between the Encoded Proteins
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Viruses
Volume 18
Issue 1
10.3390/v18010017
viruses-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants for Disease Management

by
Islam Hamim
1,*,
Sadman Jawad Sakib
1,
Md. Readoy Hossain
1,
Jaima Noor Hia
1,
Maria Hasan
1,
Alvi Al Muhimine
1 and
John S. Hu
2
1
Department of Plant Pathology, Bangladesh Agricultural University, Mymensingh 2202, Bangladesh
2
Department of Plant and Environmental Protection Sciences, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Honolulu, HI 96822, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Viruses 2026, 18(1), 17; https://doi.org/10.3390/v18010017
Submission received: 3 September 2025 / Revised: 14 December 2025 / Accepted: 15 December 2025 / Published: 22 December 2025
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Diversity and Coinfections of Plant or Fungal Viruses, 3rd Edition)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Plant viral diseases cause significant agricultural losses worldwide and are shaped by complex virus-host and virus-virus interactions. Unlike fungal or bacterial pathogens, viruses cannot be directly controlled with chemicals, and their management relies on insect vector control and the development of virus-resistant plant varieties. Plants deploy endogenous epigenetic (DNA/chromatin-based) and epitranscriptomic (RNA-based) mechanisms to limit viral infections. RNA silencing pathways, particularly post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) mediated by small RNAs, restrict viral replication and shape viral populations. Additional layers, including RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM), N6-methyladenosine (m6A) RNA modifications, histone modifications and chromatin remodeling, further modulate host–virus interactions. DNA methylation can be inherited and may confer resistance to future generations, although its stability is partial and context-dependent. Virus-derived 24-nt small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) act as mobile signals, inducing systemic gene silencing and potentially influencing viral population dynamics. Understanding these epigenetic and epitranscriptomic mechanisms can improve virus diagnosis, pathogenesis studies and disease management, while also providing insights into viral diversity and co-infection dynamics. This review synthesizes current knowledge of these mechanisms and discusses their implications for developing sustainable antiviral strategies.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

Plant pathogenic viruses are among the most destructive agents threatening global crop production. Every year, they cause crop losses valued at approximately $30 billion [1], posing a serious threat to agricultural sustainability. The economic damage caused by plant viruses is well documented worldwide (Supplementary Table S1). Effective virus control is therefore critical for reducing losses and improving crop yields. Conventional methods such as insect vector control, have achieved limited success and being mostly chemical-based, may leave harmful residues in the environment. To address the evolving nature of viruses and develop more sustainable defense strategies, molecular approaches are increasingly being prioritized.
Plants respond to diverse biotic and abiotic stresses through adaptive mechanisms that involve epigenetic modifications (DNA methylation, histone modifications, chromatin remodeling) and epitranscriptomic RNA modifications, which regulate cellular and molecular functions [2]. These modifications can directly influence transcription and stress responsive gene expression, and in some cases, persist through cell divisions or are transmitted across generations [3,4].
Plant viruses can induce heritable epigenetic changes in host plants, influencing long-term defense responses. Viruses reprogram host cellular machinery by targeting proteins and pathways involved in defense, development, and signaling, thereby altering gene expression, disrupting the cell cycle, and impairing small RNA-mediated defenses. They further modulate host defense by interfering with DNA methylation and microRNA biogenesis pathways [5,6]. Viral infection can induce de novo or altered DNA methylation patterns [6,7,8], providing a relatively stable mechanism to regulate gene expression, including resistance-related genes [9], thereby influencing host susceptibility [10,11]. In addition, viruses alter histone modifications, which reshape chromatin structure and reprogram host gene expression [12].
Virus-derived small RNAs (vsRNAs) activate epigenetic and epitranscriptomic silencing pathways that suppress viral replication and gene expression [13]. Although sRNA-mediated silencing is a central component of plant antiviral immunity, similar small RNA–based mechanisms also contribute to defense against fungal and other pathogens, including through cross-kingdom RNA interactions [14,15,16,17]. Beyond antiviral and antifungal defense, sRNAs also regulate plant development, highlighting their dual role in gene regulation [16,17,18,19].
Despite significant progress in understanding plant epigenetic mechanisms, the role of epigenetic and epitranscriptomic gene silencing in defense against pathogenic viruses and its potential application in disease management remain poorly understood. Bridging this gap could enable innovative strategies to enhance crop resistance and reduce virus-related yield losses. This review summarizes advances in plant epigenetic and epitranscriptomic responses to viral infection, examines virus–host interactions that modulate these pathways, and explores their potential for improving crop protection. Such insights are vital for combating the virus-induced crop losses worldwide.

2. Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants

Epigenetic gene silencing is a nucleus-centric host defense mechanism in plants that suppresses gene expression to maintain genome integrity. It protects host genomes from DNA viral infections and transposable elements [20,21]. Epigenetic silencing operates primarily through transcriptional gene silencing (TGS), which suppresses transcription via DNA methylation and histone modifications. In contrast, post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) is an epitranscriptomic mechanism that acts largely in the cytoplasm to mediate the degradation of target RNA molecules, including RNA viruses [21,22].

2.1. Post Transcriptional Gene Silencing

Post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) is an epitranscriptomic, sequence-specific manner defense mechanism in plants that targets viral RNAs in the cytoplasm, preventing the accumulation of viral proteins (Figure 1; Table 1) [12]. Unlike nucleus-centric epigenetic regulation, PTGS operates primarily at the RNA level and is especially critical for defense against RNA viruses.
Upon infecting a host, plant viruses initiate PTGS through the formation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA). In RNA viruses, these dsRNAs are generated during viral genome replication, whereas in DNA viruses, dsRNAs often originate from bidirectional transcription of the viral genome [23]. Upon recognition of aberrant viral or host RNAs, RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 6 (RDR6) synthesizes dsRNA from these templates, acting downstream of initial RNA detection. RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 6 (RDR6) synthesizes dsRNA using viral single-stranded RNA (ssRNA) as a template. The resulting dsRNAs are subsequently processed into 21- and 22-nucleotide siRNAs by DICER-LIKE proteins DCL4 and DCL2, respectively [18,23]. Unlike DCL2/DCL4, DCL1 functions primarily in miRNA biogenesis and endogenous gene regulation, highlighting the mechanistic distinction between antiviral siRNA pathways and miRNA pathways [18,23,24].
These siRNAs primarily participate in PTGS; however, they can also feed into the RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway, inducing low levels of de novo DNA methylation via AGO2 and reinforcing transcriptional gene silencing (TGS), as illustrated schematically in Figure 1 ( Table 1). Following processing, siRNAs are incorporated into the RNA-Induced Silencing Complex (RISC) [7,23,24,25]. The double stranded siRNA unwinds upon association with RISC and usually only the guide (antisense) strand remains, forming the activated RISC. The activated RISC binds to complementary target mRNA, guiding siRNA to the target. ARGONAUTE 1(AGO1) then cleaves the mRNA at the binding site, executing PTGS [23,26,27]. Recent studies indicate that PTGS is tightly linked to mRNA decay pathways, reflecting a coordinated cytoplasmic antiviral surveillance system [28].
Table 1. Key components of PTGS and RdDM pathways in plants and their roles in antiviral defense.
Table 1. Key components of PTGS and RdDM pathways in plants and their roles in antiviral defense.
Molecular ComponentCategory/TypeAssociated Pathway (PTGS/RdDM)Primary FunctionKey References
DCL2, DCL4Dicer-like RNase III enzymesPTGS (DCL4/DCL2); RdDM (DCL2)DCL4 makes 21-nt siRNAs for PTGS; DCL2 makes 22-nt siRNAs for antiviral silencing and non-canonical RdDM[29,30,31]
DCL3Dicer-like RNase III enzymeCanonical RdDMProcesses dsRNA into 24-nt siRNAs that guide DNA methylation in the RdDM pathway[32,33]
RDR6RNA dependent RNA polymerasePTGS, Non-canonical RdDMConverts single-stranded RNAs to double stranded RNAs for processing into21–22 nt siRNAs by DCL1, DCL2 and DCL4[34]
RDR2RNA dependent RNA polymeraseCanonical RdDMConverts Pol IV–derived ssRNAs into dsRNAs, which are processed by DCL3 into 24-nt siRNAs.[34,35]
AGO1Argonaute proteinPTGSForms RISC with 21–22 nt siRNAs to recognize and cleave complementary mRNAs.[34,36,37]
AGO2Argonaute proteinNon-canonical RdDMLoads 21–22 nt siRNAs to target Pol V transcripts and facilitates DRM2 recruitment for DNA methylation.[29]
AGO4Argonaute proteinCanonical RdDMLoads 24-nt siRNAs to target Pol V transcripts and recruits DRM2 for DNA methylation.[29]
NERDPlant-specific protein (PHD and zinc-finger domains)Non-canonical RdDMInteracts with histone H3 and AGO2–siRNA complexes to promote histone modification and transcriptional repression.[32]
DRM 2DNA methyltransferaseCanonical & non-canonical RdDMCatalyzes de novo cytosine DNA methylation guided by AGO–siRNA complexes.[34]
HEN1RNA methyltransferasePTGS, All RdDMAdds a 2′-O-methyl group to the 3′ end of siRNAs, protecting them from degradation[38]
Remarkably, once established, PTGS can persist for extended periods, reflecting a form of epigenetic memory, although evidence for maintenance after complete viral clearance remains limited [39,40]. A well-known example of PTGS is the transgenic papaya resistance system against papaya ringspot virus (PRSV). This system employs a non-translated or inefficiently translated coat protein (CP) transgene, providing sequence-homology dependent resistance to the homologous PRSV strains [41,42].

2.2. Transcriptional Gene Silencing

Transcriptional Gene Silencing (TGS) occurs via RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) and associated histone modifications, targeting both plant and viral genomes (Figure 1, Table 2). This epigenetic regulation takes place in the nucleus [19,43]. RdDM is the major small RNA-mediated epigenetic pathway in plants. This can occur either by a canonical or a non-canonical pathway involving small RNA biogenesis [32] (Figure 1). Our understanding of canonical RdDM pathway mainly originates from studies on the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana [34,44].
RNA Polymerase IV (Pol IV) directs the siRNA biogenesis by transcribing ssRNA at the target loci. Thus, Pol IV functions specifically in siRNA production, whereas Pol V functions in guiding the AGO–siRNA complex to target loci, clearly distinguishing their separate roles in canonical RdDM. RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE 2 (RDR2) then converts the ssRNA into dsRNA (Figure 1). The dsRNA is then processed by DICER-LIKE 3 (DCL3) into 24-nucleotide siRNAs, which are later stabilized by HUA ENHANCER 1(HEN1) [31]. The Pol IV-RDR2-DCL3 pathway is sufficient for the production of 24-nucleotide siRNAs in vitro, considering contributions from other associated factors [45].
For de novo methylation of DNA, a single strand from each 24-nucleotide siRNA is loaded into ARGONAUTE proteins AGO4, AGO6, or AGO9, forming the AGO–siRNA duplex. These AGO–siRNA complexes specifically bind to Pol V–derived scaffold transcripts, ensuring precise targeting. Subsequently, AGO4 recruits DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANSFERASE 2 (DRM2), which methylates the nearby DNA and suppresses the target gene expression [32,46,47]. Histone modifications including de-acetylation, de-methylation, and de-ubiquitination, further remodel chromatin at certain RdDM targets, achieving stable transcriptional gene silencing [31]. In plants, these are often associated with antiviral silencing [48,49], and arise primarily as byproducts of PTGS (Figure 1). The main function of non-canonical pathway is to establish silencing by sparsely methylating a targeted region, which later gets taken over by the canonical pathway to establish long term silencing [44]. Thus, the non-canonical pathway acts as a temporary bridge between PTGS and canonical RdDM pathway (Figure 2), targeting fewer genomic regions compared to the canonical pathway [29].
Table 2. Geminiviral protein-mediated suppression of host defense mechanism.
Table 2. Geminiviral protein-mediated suppression of host defense mechanism.
Viral ProteinVirusHost TargetEffect on Epigenetic Gene SilencingReferences
Rep (Replication-associated protein)Tomato yellow leaf curl Sardinia virus (TYLCSV)MET1, CMT3Reduces maintenance DNA methylation (CG context), weakening transcriptional gene silencing (TGS)[50]
AC2Tomato golden mosaic virus (TGMV), Cabbage leaf curl virus (CaLCuV)SUVH4/KYP (H3K9 histone methyltransferase)Inhibits histone methylation, disrupting chromatin-based TGS[51]
C2Beet severe curly top virus (BSCTV)SAMDC1 (S-adenosyl methionine decarboxylase)Lowers methyl donor availability, reducing DNA and histone methylation for epigenetic silencing[52]
C4Tomato leaf curl Yunnan virus (TLCYnV)DRM2 (Domain Rearranged Methyltransferase 2)Prevents de novo cytosine methylation on viral DNA, impairing RdDM-mediated TGS[53]
TrAPTGMV, BCTVADK (Adenosine Kinase)Disrupts SAM biosynthesis, interfering with methylation-mediated TGS[54]
V2TYLCV, Cotton leaf curl Multan virus (CLCuMuV)AGO4Blocks AGO4 binding to viral DNA, inhibiting RdDM and preventing transcriptional silencing[24]
Pre-coat ProteinTYLCV, ToLCNDVMET1, RDR1, HDA6Suppresses maintenance methylation and chromatin silencing, compromising TGS[55,56]
C4CLCuMuV, ToYLCGDVSAM synthetase, BAM1Reduces SAM availability and inhibits TGS; disrupts epigenetic regulation of defense genes[57,58,59]
AC5MYMIVCHH cytosine methyltransferaseSuppresses RNA-induced PTGS and reverses TGS of silenced transgenes, impairing epigenetic silencing[60]
βC1Betasatellite of TYLCCNVSAHH (S-adenosyl homocysteine hydrolase)Disrupts methyl cycle, suppresses methylation-dependent PTGS and RdDM-mediated TGS via calmodulin-like protein (CaM)[61,62]
2bCucumber Mosaic virus (CMV)AGO proteinsDisrupts siRNA mediated RdDM pathway and results in hypomethylation[63]
HC-pro (Helper component protease)Tobacco Vein Banding Mosaic Virus (TVBMV)DNA methylation machineryDecreases DNA methylation of the promoter of auxin biosynthesis genes targeted by RdDM and interferes with auxin signaling pathways[64]
P19TombusvirusAGO1Enhanced accumulation of AGO1 and viral RNAs, thereby effectively suppressing the RNA silencing based host defense [65]
F-box protein
P0		Turnip Yellows Virus (TuYV)AGO1 Blocks small RNA-mediated silencing and targets AGO1 via autophagy degradation processes, thus impairing PTGS mechanism of host[66]

3. Plant Epigenetic (DNA-Based) and Epitranscriptomic (RNA-Based) Modifications

3.1. Plant DNA

DNA methylation occurs mainly at cytosine residues, which is the key epigenetic silencing system for regulating gene expression and maintaining genome stability in plants [67]. Methyl groups from S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM) are added to the 5th carbon of cytosine, generating 5-methylcytosine (5meC) on target sequences, including host gene promoters [43]. This modification is central to TGS in plants as defense against various pathogens, including viruses [68]. Mechanistically, it blocks transcription of adjacent genes, establishing TGS and restricting expression of viral or host genes [49]. In the canonical RdDM pathway dsRNA is processed by DCL3 into 24-nt siRNAs [69]. These siRNAs bind with AGO4/AGO6 guiding methyltransferases to target loci to induce de novo methylation [69]. In non-canonical pathway, DCL4 produces 21–22 nt siRNA which can bind with AGO4 and lead to DNA methylation [70]. DNA methylation occurs in symmetrical CG and CHG contexts and in asymmetric CHH contexts (where H = A, T, or C) [70,71].
Figure 2 schematically illustrates the context-specific DNA methylation patterns mediated by MET1, CMT3, CMT2, and DRM2. MET1 maintains symmetric CG methylation, while CMT3 catalyzes CHG methylation. CHH methylation is established by CMT2 and DRM2, with DRM2 responsible for de novo methylation. Together, these methyltransferases reinforce transcriptional gene silencing and contribute to plant antiviral defense. Within the canonical RdDM pathway, AGO4 binds virus-derived siRNAs and recruits DRM2 to viral DNA, promoting cytosine methylation that restricts geminivirus replication in Arabidopsis and other crop species [51].

3.2. Plant RNA

Adenosine methylation at the N6 position (m6A) is the most prevalent internal RNA modification in plants, occurring in rRNAs, mRNAs, tRNAs, miRNAs, and long noncoding RNAs [72]. About 80% of RNA methylation in plant cells is caused by m6A modifications [73]. Analyses show that m6A was found in wheat (Triticum turgidum L.), oat (Avena sativa L.) coleoptiles, and maize (Zea mays L.) [74,75,76]. However, the molecular mechanisms regulating m6A methylation in plants remain incompletely understood [77,78]. m6A modification is dynamically regulated by methyltransferases (writers), demethylases (erasers), and recognized by m6A binding proteins (readers) [77,78].
In plants, the core m6A writer complex consists of MTA and MTB as catalytic subunits, together with accessory proteins FIP37, VIRILIZER (VIR), and HAKAI, which are essential for successful methylation activity [79,80]. This modification plays a bidirectional role, it can inhibit viral RNA replication as part of the host antiviral defense, but in some cases, reversible m6A methylation may facilitate viral infection [79]. For example, virus infection can alter host mRNA methylation, affecting expression of defense-related genes and modulating stress responses [81]. When viral RNA enters the host plant, m6A methyltransferases such as plant METTL homologs catalyze methylation as part of a stress response [77,78,81]. Conversely, in watermelon infected with cucumber green mottle mosaic virus, ALKBH9B demethylases are activated, reducing m6A and promoting viral invasion (Figure 3).
Figure 3 illustrates how viral RNAs are dynamically regulated by m6A: methylated by ‘writers,’ demethylated by ALKBH9B ‘erasers,’ and recognized by YTH-domain ‘readers,’ which mediate downstream host responses during virus infection. YTH domain proteins act as readers, recognizing m6A-modified RNAs and mediating downstream responses during the interaction of methyltransferases and demethylases [79].

3.3. Plant Histones

In plants, genomic DNA is packed into chromatin, with the nucleosome as its functional unit. Each nucleosome contains a core histone octamer, including two copies of four core histone proteins H2A, H2B, H3, and H4 and wrapped by around 147 bp DNA. Histone N-terminal tails undergo covalent modifications, such as methylation, acetylation, ubiquitination, phosphorylation, without altering the underlying DNA sequence [82,83]. Key histone modifications involved in plant epigenetic gene silencing include H3K9, H3K2 and H3K4 methylation [84]. H3K4me3 is an activation mark that can function as a molecular memory, priming plant genes for expression (Figure 4).
H3K9me2 and H3K27me3 act as repressive marks, silencing target genes [85]. Figure 4 illustrates these key histone modifications and their functional interplay in epigenetic gene silencing, including the reinforcing loop between H3K9me2 and DNA methylation, and PRC2-mediated deposition of H3K27me3 for long-term transcriptional repression. H3K9me2 cooperates with DNA methylation to silence viral genes. H3K9 methylation recruits CMT3 to maintain CHG methylation, while DNA methylation in turn recruits SUVH enzymes to sustain H3K9me2, establishing a reinforcing loop that stabilizes epigenetic silencing [86]. Upon viral invasion, the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) deposits H3K27me3 at specific loci, compacting chromatin and repressing transcription to promote long-term gene silencing. This maintenance is largely independent of DNA methylation or RNA interference pathways, highlighting a distinct regulatory mechanism during viral stress [87]. Recent studies further demonstrate that histone demethylases actively participate in antiviral defense against RNA viruses, dynamically modulating these histone marks to regulate defense-related gene expression and facilitate virus-triggered induced resistance [84].

4. Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Arms Race Between Plants and Viruses

Plant DNA viruses, such as geminiviruses, are small circular single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) viruses that, upon nuclear entry, are converted into double-stranded DNA and assembled into minichromosomes with host histones, which serve as templates for replication and transcription (Figure 5) [88,89,90,91,92,93]. Viral infection often produces characteristic symptoms, including leaf curling, stunted growth, and mosaic patterns, reflecting the virus’s intimate interaction with host chromatin and cellular machinery [93,94]. In contrast, plant RNA viruses, such as Turnip mosaic virus (TuMV), Cucumber mosaic virus (CMV), Tobacco mosaic virus (TMV), and Alfalfa mosaic virus (AMV), replicate predominantly in the cytoplasm within virus-induced membrane-bound replication complexes and are regulated through epitranscriptomic modifications, including N6-methyladenosine (m6A) and small interfering RNA (siRNA)-mediated silencing [95,96]. These differences underscore a nucleus-centric strategy for DNA viruses versus a cytoplasm-centric strategy for RNA viruses, illustrating how virus-host interactions determine replication efficiency, symptom development, and host responses. Both pathways ultimately converge on Argonaute-mediated silencing and small RNA amplification, forming an integrated antiviral network and revealing shared host targets despite distinct subcellular replication niches.
Many DNA viruses encode suppressors that inhibit AGO4-dependent RdDM, reduce siRNA accumulation, or recruit host demethylases such as ROS1 and DME to erase 5-methylcytosine marks on viral minichromosomes [6,97,98]. Similarly, several RNA viruses deploy viral suppressors of RNA silencing (VSRs) that directly bind or inhibit AGO1, which central to PTGS, or sequester siRNAs to block RISC assembly [99,100]. RNA viruses also manipulate the epitranscriptome by encoding AlkB-like RNA demethylases that remove m6A marks from viral RNAs, thereby counteracting host-mediated antiviral methylation [27,79,100]. Both DNA and RNA viruses additionally trigger widespread reprogramming of host methylomes and small-RNA regulatory networks, altering CG/CHG/CHH methylation or miRNA pathway components to enhance susceptibility [50,101,102,103,104]. Together, these features reveal how DNA and RNA viruses, despite their distinct replication environments, converge on shared host targets, including AGO proteins, small RNA pathways, and methylation machinery.
Plants employ multifaceted epigenetic and epitranscriptomic mechanisms to restrict viral replication. For DNA viruses such as geminiviruses, transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) mediated by RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) deposits cytosine methylation in CG, CHG, and CHH contexts, effectively repressing viral transcription [105]. Host factors including ARGONAUTE4 (AGO4), DECREASE IN DNA METHYLATION 1 (DDM1), and Ty-1 are critical for this defense, and mutants lacking these components, such as in Arabidopsis thaliana, exhibit heightened susceptibility to Cabbage leaf curl virus (CaLCuV) and Beet curly top virus (BCTV) [6,106]. Even low levels of cytosine methylation, naturally or via Ty-1-mediated enhancement, can slow viral replication, facilitate symptom recovery, and amplify antiviral siRNAs. Similarly, in soybean, Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus (MYMIV) DNA shows high intergenic methylation with 24-nt siRNAs indicative of active RdDM [107], while Pepper golden mosaic virus (PepGMV) induces siRNAs that silence viral transcripts and promote recovery in pepper [50,108]. These nuclear DNA virus defenses also feed into cytoplasmic PTGS pathways via small RNA movement, highlighting the functional link and convergence between nuclear TGS and cytoplasmic antiviral silencing.
In parallel, RNA viruses are modulated through epitranscriptomic mechanisms, particularly m6A modifications and siRNA-mediated post-transcriptional silencing, which influence RNA stability, translation efficiency, and degradation [95,109]. Figure 6 illustrates plant epigenetic defenses against RNA viruses and viral counter-strategies. m6A methylation by writer proteins promotes RNA degradation and suppresses viral replication, whereas erasers remove these marks to facilitate viral RNA translation and infection. Concurrently, the RNA interference pathway generates siRNAs from viral dsRNA, which guide RISC to degrade viral RNAs, highlighting the multilayered host–virus epitranscriptomic arms race. The effect of m6A on viral RNAs can be context-dependent: for example, TMV infection reduces m6A levels in Nicotiana tabacum, whereas AMV infection increases m6A in Arabidopsis thaliana. In Arabidopsis, the host RNA demethylase ALKBH9B normally removes m6A from viral RNAs. Inhibition of ALKBH9B increases m6A levels on AMV RNA, which enhances siRNA-mediated antiviral responses and limits systemic virus spread [27]. In contrast, some plant RNA viruses encode their own AlkB-like RNA demethylases that remove m6A from viral RNAs, allowing the virus to evade host RNA silencing and promote infection [79]. Similarly, Pepino Mosaic Virus (PepMV) infection in N. benthamiana and S. lycopersicum modulates m6A on viral RNA, altering replication and movement, highlighting the interplay between RNA methylation and viral fitness [79]. RNA virus-induced small RNAs can indirectly influence nuclear DNA methylation or RdDM components, further demonstrating a bidirectional interplay and convergence between cytoplasmic and nuclear antiviral defenses.
Viruses, in turn, have evolved diverse strategies to circumvent host defenses. Geminiviruses actively promote DNA demethylation to evade RdDM-mediated TGS, removing 5-methylcytosine from CG, CHG, and CHH contexts. For instance, the βC1 protein of Tomato yellow leaf curl China betasatellite (TYLCCNB) interacts with ROS1-like DNA glycosylase in Nicotiana benthamiana and DEMETER (DME) in A. thaliana to reverse viral DNA methylation, while ROS1 also suppresses RdDM, further weakening antiviral defense. Likewise, the C2 protein of Beet severe curly top virus (BSCTV) reduces methylation in promoter repeats of ACCELERATED CELL DEATH 6 (ACD6), increasing host gene expression and reducing resistance [38,97,98]. Figure 5 illustrates how geminiviruses evade plant epigenetic defenses. Viral proteins block RdDM-mediated DNA methylation and siRNA amplification, while host DNA demethylases further enhance viral replication, highlighting the multilayered host–virus arms race. Other viral suppressors, including AC2/AL2 from Tomato golden mosaic virus (TGMV), V2 from TYLCV, Rep, βC1, and C4, disrupt host methylation machinery, RNA silencing, or hormone signaling, facilitating viral replication and symptom development [40,53,98,110]. Field observations, such as partial suppression of RdDM in papaya infected by Tomato leaf curl Joydebpur virus (ToLCJoV), Tomato Leaf Curl New Delhi Virus (ToLCNDV), and Tomato Leaf Curl Bangladesh Virus (ToLCBV) in Bangladesh, or the low Banana Bunchy Top Virus (BBTV) titers in a host-shift to Heliconia in Hawaii, demonstrate the real-world impact of these viral countermeasures [98,102,103,111,112,113]. RNA viruses similarly employ viral suppressors of RNA silencing (VSRs), such as CMV 2b and TRV 16K, which sequester host small RNAs and disrupt RNA-induced silencing complexes (RISC), thereby repressing antiviral gene expression. Additionally, Bean common mosaic virus (BCMV) manipulates host microRNA pathways to alter development and immunity, while the non-coding Hop stunt viroid (HSVd) reduces repressive histone marks such as H3K9me2 to reactivate silenced genes [99,101,114,115]. The durable resistance observed in PRSV-resistant transgenic papaya highlights the potential of exploiting siRNA-mediated epigenetic mechanisms for stable and heritable crop protection [41]. Collectively, these examples highlight both the distinct and overlapping strategies of DNA and RNA viruses, emphasizing a convergent focus on AGO-mediated silencing despite divergent replication compartments. To provide a clear comparative overview of how plant DNA and RNA viruses evade host defenses, we summarized their genome organization, host silencing pathways, viral countermeasures, representative examples, and functional impacts in Table 3. DNA viruses primarily target nuclear methylation machinery, while RNA viruses disrupt cytoplasmic siRNA pathways; both strategies ultimately compromise AGO-mediated host defense.
Plants counter these viral strategies through multilayered strategies, including RNA silencing amplification and targeted phosphorylation of viral proteins. The Ty-1 resistance gene in tomato encodes an RNA-dependent RNA polymerase that enhances cytosine methylation on viral DNA and amplifies viral-derived siRNAs (vsiRNAs), particularly 21- and 22-nt species, thereby promoting degradation of viral RNA even in the presence of suppressors such as C2/TrAP and V2 [106,121] (Figure 5). Complementarily, the Sucrose non-fermenting 1–related kinase 1 (SnRK1) phosphorylates viral proteins to impair their function: βC1 at serine-33 and threonine-78, Rep of TGMV at serine-97, and TrAP of CaLCuV at serine-109. These phosphorylation events collectively reduce viral DNA replication, suppress viral protein activity, and attenuate symptom severity [122,123,124].
Against RNA viruses, plants employ siRNA-mediated post-transcriptional gene silencing. Long viral double-stranded RNAs (dsRNAs) are processed by Dicer-like (DCL) enzymes into 21–25 nucleotide siRNAs, which are unwound into guide and passenger strands. The guide strand is loaded into RNA-induced silencing complexes (RISC) containing Argonaute (AGO) proteins, while the passenger strand is degraded. Activated RISC then targets complementary viral RNAs for cleavage or translational repression, effectively limiting viral replication [24,125]. Examples include CMV in A. thaliana, Tobacco rattle virus (TRV), and Tomato mosaic virus (ToMV), highlighting how siRNA amplification and RISC activity suppress viral gene expression. Thus, plants employ complementary nuclear and cytoplasmic defense strategies that converge on small RNA amplification and ARGONAUTE-mediated silencing to combat diverse viral threats.
In summary, plant defense against viruses operates through a multifaceted network of epigenetic and epitranscriptomic mechanisms. Against DNA viruses, hosts employ RdDM-mediated transcriptional gene silencing, maintain or restore viral DNA methylation, amplify antiviral siRNAs, and phosphorylate viral proteins. In turn, geminiviruses deploy silencing suppressors and viral-encoded demethylases to counter these defenses, creating a dynamic molecular arms race that ultimately shapes disease outcomes. RNA viruses, in parallel, are regulated through m6A modifications and siRNA-mediated post-transcriptional silencing, with viral countermeasures modulating these pathways to enhance replication and movement. Together, these findings highlight the intricate interplay between host defenses and viral counterstrategies, suggesting that targeted manipulation of epigenetic and epitranscriptomic pathways could provide innovative approaches to enhance crop resistance against both DNA and RNA viruses (Figure 5 and Figure 6). Despite mechanistic differences, both DNA and RNA viruses encounter overlapping host defenses centered on small RNAs and AGO activity, revealing an integrated epigenetic and epitranscriptomic arms race (Figure 5 and Figure 6).

5. Future Perspectives and Potential Applications of Epigenetic/Epitranscriptomic Silencing in Plant Virus Management

Epigenetic/epitranscriptomic silencing is emerging as a versatile tool for plant-virus management, offering opportunities in diagnostics, functional genomics, crop improvement, and sustainable disease control. Advances in high-throughput sequencing, epigenomic profiling, and genome editing have enabled precise insights into RNA- and DNA-based epigenetic mechanisms, including small RNA-mediated silencing, DNA and RNA methylation, and chromatin modifications, which collectively shape plant-virus interactions.

5.1. Virus Detection and Diagnostic Applications

Virus-derived small interfering RNAs (vsiRNAs) serve as reliable biomarkers for viral infection. High-throughput sequencing of vsiRNAs, known as virus-derived small RNA profiling (vdSAR), enables detection of both known and novel viruses without prior genomic information [126]. DNA virus infections predominantly generate 24-nt siRNAs via RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM), whereas RNA viruses produce mainly 21–22 nt vsiRNAs, reflecting post-transcriptional silencing [6,32]. Integration of small RNA profiling with DNA methylation analysis enhances diagnostic sensitivity, though distinguishing viral from host small RNAs and detecting low-abundance signals remain challenges [32,126,127]. Emerging omics technologies, including nanopore-based methylome sequencing, single-cell methylation profiling, and long-read RNA-seq enable single-base resolution of viral DNA/RNA modifications, full-length viral transcript detection, and cell-type-specific host-virus interaction profiling, providing unprecedented sensitivity and specificity for early virus detection [103].

5.2. Functional Genomics Using Virus-Induced Gene Silencing

Epigenetic gene silencing, especially via virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), continues to serve as a useful functional genomics approach in plants [128]. Plant RNA viruses such as PVX (Potato Virus X), TRV (Tobacco Rattle Virus), and CMV (Cucumber Mosaic Virus) are commonly used as vectors in functional genomics. These viruses can induce transcriptional or post-transcriptional gene silencing of reporter transgenes, including GFP and GUS, facilitating functional studies directly in living plants [128]. Recent advancements have optimized VIGS protocols across diverse species, for instance, VIGS has been successfully applied in sunflower using TRV, and in tomato to study ripening-related genes via silencing of a specific methyltransferase [128,129]. A closely relevant recent study demonstrated that short RNA inserts (24–32 nt) delivered through viral vectors can robustly trigger gene silencing [130]. This finding highlights an emerging direction in VIGS optimization, where the use of minimal, precisely designed RNA inserts can significantly increase efficiency and extend VIGS applicability to non-model crops where traditional approaches remain challenging. Recent methylome analyses indicate that viral infections can cause epigenetic modifications, including changes in DNA methylation, histone modifications, and chromatin structure, which are associated with the regulation of defense- and stress-related genes [83,131]. Sequencing technologies, such as enzymatic methyl-seq, allow single-base resolution mapping of these changes, providing information that may help guide research toward virus-resistant cultivars [79].

5.3. Engineering Viral Resistance Through Epigenetic Modifications

Epigenetic modifications offer a promising route for engineering durable viral resistance [132]. Some DNA methylation sites and histone changes help plants turn on antiviral genes [133], but viral proteins like AL2 and L2 from Beet Curly Top Virus (BCTV) can block these defenses [54]. By studying these processes, scientists can use epigenetic tools to boost plant immunity and develop viral-resistant crops. Emerging tools such as long-read sequencing and CRISPR/Cas9-based epigenome editing enable precise analysis and targeted manipulation of host epigenetic marks, providing opportunities to enhance plant immunity and generate heritable viral resistance [103,134].

5.4. Exogenous Epigenetic-Based Virucides

The exogenous application of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) or small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) offers a novel, environmentally friendly strategy to control viral infections (Figure 7).
Figure 7 illustrates how applied dsRNA and siRNA trigger antiviral gene silencing in plants. dsRNA is processed by Dicer-like enzymes and loaded into RISC to activate RdDM-mediated transcriptional silencing, while siRNA bypasses Dicer and directly induces epigenetic silencing, effectively preventing viral symptoms. Topical dsRNA treatments targeting viral genomes reduce viral accumulation and symptoms in crops infected with Cucumber Green Mottle Mosaic Virus (CGMMV) and Potato Virus X/Y [135,136]. Recent studies demonstrate that high-pressure dsRNA spraying can induce transcriptional gene silencing via RdDM, a phenomenon termed spray-induced epigenetic modification [119,137]. For example, 24-nt siRNA applications under high pressure induced methylation of the Cauliflower Mosaic Virus (CaMV) 35S promoter in Nicotiana benthamiana, leading to transcriptional silencing of viral genes [119,137]. These strategies provide a foundation for sequence-specific antiviral treatments and virucide development.

5.5. Ecological and Ethical Considerations

While epigenetic tools offer precise control over viral susceptibility, their ecological and ethical impacts must be considered. Deploying epigenetically modified or RNA-based antiviral crops could alter host-virus dynamics, influence non-target organisms, and affect agroecosystem stability. Regulatory frameworks, risk assessments, and public engagement are essential to ensure responsible application. Integration of biosafety data from field trials of dsRNA sprays and epigenome-edited crops can guide practical deployment, ensuring both effectiveness and ecological compatibility.
Overall, epigenetic gene silencing offers powerful and flexible tools for managing plant viruses. From improving early diagnostics and exploring gene functions to creating durable resistance and environmentally friendly RNA-based treatments, these strategies provide precise and sustainable ways to boost plant immunity. By combining small RNA profiling, methylome mapping, long-read sequencing, and targeted epigenome editing, researchers can deepen our understanding of plant-virus interactions and develop crops with reliable, heritable resistance to viral diseases.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/v18010017/s1, Table S1: Estimated annual economic losses in major crops due to plant pathogenic viruses worldwide. Values are approximate and compiled from published articles [1,104,138,139,140,141,142].

Author Contributions

I.H. and J.S.H. conceived and designed the review. I.H. wrote the manuscript. I.H., S.J.S., M.R.H., J.N.H., A.A.M. and M.H. collected and analyzed the literature and constructed the figures. I.H. and J.S.H. edited the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This review was funded by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) as part of the Feed the Future initiative under the CGIAR Fund, award number BFS-G-11-00002, and the predecessor fund of the Food Security and Crisis Mitigation II grant, award number EEM-G-0004-00013. The research was also supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Hatch HAW09025-H (1001478), and the USDA Agricultural Research Service (58-5320-4-012). During the writing of the manuscript, Islam Hamim was supported through a Georg Forster fellowship (Ref 3.5—BGD—1217640—GF-P) from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Conflicts of Interest

All authors declare no conflict of interest. All authors declare that they do not have any competing financial, professional, or non-financial interests that could be construed as influencing the interpretation of data or the presentation of information described in this manuscript.

References

  1. Tatineni, S.; Hein, G.L. Plant Viruses of Agricultural Importance: Current and Future Perspectives of Virus Disease Management Strategies. Phytopathology 2023, 113, 117–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Dodds, P.N.; Rathjen, J.P. Plant immunity: Towards an integrated view of plant–pathogen interactions. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2010, 11, 539–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Chinnusamy, V.; Zhu, J.-K. Epigenetic regulation of stress responses in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Zhu, Q.-H.; Shan, W.-X.; Ayliffe, M.A.; Wang, M.-B. Epigenetic Mechanisms: An Emerging Player in Plant-Microbe Interactions. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2016, 29, 187–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Norouzitallab, P.; Baruah, K.; Vanrompay, D.; Bossier, P. Can epigenetics translate environmental cues into phenotypes? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 647, 1281–1293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. 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]
  7. Baulcombe, D.C.; Dean, C. Epigenetic Regulation in Plant Responses to the Environment. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Biol. 2014, 6, a019471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Castellano, M.; Martinez, G.; Marques, M.C.; Moreno-Romero, J.; Köhler, C.; Pallas, V.; Gomez, G. Changes in the DNA methylation pattern of the host male gametophyte of viroid-infected cucumber plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2016, 67, 5857–5868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Dowen, R.H.; Pelizzola, M.; Schmitz, R.J.; Lister, R.; Dowen, J.M.; Nery, J.R.; Dixon, J.E.; Ecker, J.R. Widespread dynamic DNA methylation in response to biotic stress. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, E2183–E2191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Boyko, A.; Kathiria, P.; Zemp, F.J.; Yao, Y.; Pogribny, I.; Kovalchuk, I. Transgenerational changes in the genome stability and methylation in pathogen-infected plants. Nucleic Acids Res. 2007, 35, 1714–1725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Sato, Y.; Miyashita, S.; Ando, S.; Takahashi, H. Increased cytosine methylation at promoter of the NB-LRR class R gene RCY1 correlated with compromised resistance to cucumber mosaic virus in EMS-generated src mutants of Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2017, 100, 151–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Ramirez-Prado, J.S.; Abulfaraj, A.A.; Rayapuram, N.; Benhamed, M.; Hirt, H. Plant Immunity: From Signaling to Epigenetic Control of Defense. Trends Plant Sci. 2018, 23, 833–844. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Waterhouse, P.M.; Wang, M.-B.; Lough, T. Gene silencing as an adaptive defence against viruses. Nature 2001, 411, 834–842. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Voinnet, O. Three decades of mobile RNA silencing within plants: What have we learnt? J. Exp. Bot. 2025, eraf312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Stael, S.; Kmiecik, P.; Willems, P.; Van Der Kelen, K.; Coll, N.S.; Teige, M.; Van Breusegem, F. Plant innate immunity—Sunny side up? Trends Plant Sci. 2015, 20, 3–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Weiberg, A.; Wang, M.; Lin, F.M.; Zhao, H.; Zhang, Z.; Kaloshian, I.; Huang, H.-D.; Jin, H. Fungal small RNAs suppress plant immunity by hijacking host RNA interference pathways. Science 2013, 342, 118–123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Niño-Sánchez, J.; Wu, H.; Hamby, R.; Chen, A.; Zhang, M.; Mosquera, S.; Jin, H. Cross-kingdom RNA trafficking from bacteria to fungi enables plant protection against fungal pathogens. Mol. Plant. 2025, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Borges, F.; Martienssen, R.A. The expanding world of small RNAs in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2015, 16, 727–741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Matzke, M.; Kanno, T.; Daxinger, L.; Huettel, B.; Matzke, A.J. RNA-mediated chromatin-based silencing in plants. Curr. Opin. Cell Biol. 2009, 21, 367–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kan, R.L.; Chen, J.; Sallam, T. Crosstalk between epitranscriptomic and epigenetic mechanisms in gene regulation. Trends Genet. 2022, 38, 182–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rajeevkumar, S.; Anunanthini, P.; Sathishkumar, R. Epigenetic silencing in transgenic plants. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Ge, L.; Pan, F.; Jia, M.; Pott, D.M.; He, H.; Shan, H.; Lozano-Durán, R.; Wang, A.; Zhou, X.; Li, F. RNA modifications in plant biotic interactions. Plant Commun. 2025, 6, 101232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Gong, Q.; Wang, Y.; Jin, Z.; Hong, Y.; Liu, Y. Transcriptional and post-transcriptional regulation of RNAi-related gene expression during plant-virus interactions. Stress Biol. 2022, 2, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wang, C.; Wang, C.; Zou, J.; Yang, Y.; Li, Z.; Zhu, S. Epigenetics in the plant–virus interaction. Plant Cell Rep. 2019, 38, 1031–1038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Agrawal, N.; Dasaradhi, P.V.N.; Mohmmed, A.; Malhotra, P.; Bhatnagar, R.K.; Mukherjee, S.K. RNA Interference: Biology, Mechanism, and Applications. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2003, 67, 657–685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Lee, C.H.; Carroll, B.J. Evolution and Diversification of Small RNA Pathways in Flowering Plants. Plant Cell Physiol. 2018, 59, 2169–2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Martínez-Pérez, M.; Aparicio, F.; López-Gresa, M.P.; Bellés, J.M.; Sánchez-Navarro, J.A.; Pallás, V. Arabidopsis m6 A demethylase activity modulates viral infection of a plant virus and the m6 A abundance in its genomic RNAs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2017, 114, 10755–10760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Krzyszton, M.; Kufel, J.; Zakrzewska-Placzek, M. RNA interference and turnover in plants-a complex partnership. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1608888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Erdmann, R.M.; Picard, C.L. RNA-directed DNA Methylation. PLoS Genet. 2020, 16, e1009034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Jin, L.; Chen, M.; Xiang, M.; Guo, Z. RNAi-Based Antiviral Innate Immunity in Plants. Viruses 2022, 14, 432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wambui Mbichi, R.; Wang, Q.-F.; Wan, T. RNA directed DNA methylation and seed plant genome evolution. Plant Cell Rep. 2020, 39, 983–996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Matzke, M.A.; Mosher, R.A. RNA-directed DNA methylation: An epigenetic pathway of increasing complexity. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2014, 15, 394–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Stroud, H.; Greenberg, M.V.C.; Feng, S.; Bernatavichute, Y.V.; Jacobsen, S.E. Comprehensive Analysis of Silencing Mutants Reveals Complex Regulation of the Arabidopsis Methylome. Cell 2013, 152, 352–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Matzke, M.A.; Kanno, T.; Matzke, A.J.M. RNA-Directed DNA Methylation: The Evolution of a Complex Epigenetic Pathway in Flowering Plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2015, 66, 243–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Blevins, T.; Podicheti, R.; Mishra, V.; Marasco, M.; Wang, J.; Rusch, D.; Tang, H.; Pikaard, C.S. Identification of Pol IV and RDR2-dependent precursors of 24 nt siRNAs guiding de novo DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. eLife 2015, 4, e09591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Fang, X.; Qi, Y. RNAi in Plants: An Argonaute-Centered View. Plant Cell 2016, 28, 272–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Voinnet, O. Use, tolerance and avoidance of amplified RNA silencing by plants. Trends Plant Sci. 2008, 13, 317–328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Yang, D.-L.; Zhang, G.; Wang, L.; Li, J.; Xu, D.; Di, C.; Tang, K.; Yang, L.; Zeng, L.; Miki, D.; et al. Four putative SWI2/SNF2 chromatin remodelers have dual roles in regulating DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. Cell Discov. 2018, 4, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Llave, C.; Kasschau, K.D.; Carrington, J.C. Virus-encoded suppressor of posttranscriptional gene silencing targets a maintenance step in the silencing pathway. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 13401–13406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Romero-Rodríguez, B.; Petek, M.; Jiao, C.; Križnik, M.; Zagorščak, M.; Fei, Z.; Bejarano, E.R.; Gruden, K.; Castillo, A.G. Transcriptional and epigenetic changes during tomato yellow leaf curl virus infection in tomato. BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hamim, I.; Borth, W.B.; Marquez, J.; Green, J.C.; Melzer, M.J.; Hu, J.S. Transgene-mediated resistance to Papaya ringspot virus: Challenges and solutions. Phytoparasitica 2018, 46, 1–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Tripathi, S.; Bau, H.; Chen, L.; Yeh, S. The ability of Papaya ringspot virusstrains overcoming the transgenic resistance of papaya conferred by the coat protein gene is not correlated with higher degrees of sequence divergence from the transgene. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2004, 110, 871–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Deleris, A.; Halter, T.; Navarro, L. DNA Methylation and Demethylation in Plant Immunity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2016, 54, 579–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Cuerda-Gil, D.; Slotkin, R.K. Non-canonical RNA-directed DNA methylation. Nat. Plants 2016, 2, 16163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Singh, J.; Mishra, V.; Wang, F.; Huang, H.-Y.; Pikaard, C.S. Reaction Mechanisms of Pol IV, RDR2, and DCL3 Drive RNA Channeling in the siRNA-Directed DNA Methylation Pathway. Mol. Cell 2019, 75, 576–589.e5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wierzbicki, A.T.; Ream, T.S.; Haag, J.R.; Pikaard, C.S. RNA polymerase V transcription guides ARGONAUTE4 to chromatin. Nat. Genet. 2009, 41, 630–634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, H.; Lang, Z.; Zhu, J.-K. Dynamics and function of DNA methylation in plants. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2018, 19, 489–506. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ding, S.-W.; Voinnet, O. Antiviral Immunity Directed by Small RNAs. Cell 2007, 130, 413–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Dong, Q.; Li, X.; Wang, C.-Z.; Xu, S.; Yuan, G.; Shao, W.; Liu, B.; Zheng, Y.; Wang, H.; Lei, X.; et al. Roles of the CSE1L-mediated nuclear import pathway in epigenetic silencing. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, E4013–E4022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Rodríguez-Negrete, E.; Lozano-Durán, R.; Piedra-Aguilera, A.; Cruzado, L.; Bejarano, E.R.; Castillo, A.G. Geminivirus R ep protein interferes with the plant DNA methylation machinery and suppresses transcriptional gene silencing. New Phytol. 2013, 199, 464–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Veluthambi, K.; Sunitha, S. Targets and Mechanisms of Geminivirus Silencing Suppressor Protein AC2. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 645419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Zhang, Z.; Chen, H.; Huang, X.; Xia, R.; Zhao, Q.; Lai, J.; Teng, K.; Li, Y.; Liang, L.; Du, Q.; et al. BSCTV C2 Attenuates the Degradation of SAMDC1 to Suppress DNA Methylation-Mediated Gene Silencing in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2011, 23, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mei, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, F.; Zhou, X. The C4 protein encoded by tomato leaf curl Yunnan virus reverses transcriptional gene silencing by interacting with NbDRM2 and impairing its DNA-binding ability. PLoS Pathog. 2020, 16, e1008829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Jackel, J.N.; Buchmann, R.C.; Singhal, U.; Bisaro, D.M. Analysis of Geminivirus AL2 and L2 Proteins Reveals a Novel AL2 Silencing Suppressor Activity. J. Virol. 2015, 89, 3176–3187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Basu, S.; Kumar Kushwaha, N.; Kumar Singh, A.; Pankaj Sahu, P.; Vinoth Kumar, R.; Chakraborty, S. Dynamics of a geminivirus-encoded pre-coat protein and host RNA-dependent RNA polymerase 1 in regulating symptom recovery in tobacco. J. Exp. Bot. 2018, 69, 2085–2102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wang, B.; Yang, X.; Wang, Y.; Xie, Y.; Zhou, X. Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus V2 Interacts with Host Histone Deacetylase 6 To Suppress Methylation-Mediated Transcriptional Gene Silencing in Plants. J. Virol. 2018, 92, e00036-18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ismayil, A.; Haxim, Y.; Wang, Y.; Li, H.; Qian, L.; Han, T.; Chen, T.; Jia, Q.; Yihao Liu, A.; Zhu, S.; et al. Cotton Leaf Curl Multan virus C4 protein suppresses both transcriptional and post-transcriptional gene silencing by interacting with SAM synthetase. PLoS Pathog. 2018, 14, e1007282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Li, Z.; Du, Z.; Tang, Y.; She, X.; Wang, X.; Zhu, Y.; Yu, L.; Lan, G.; He, Z. C4, the Pathogenic Determinant of Tomato Leaf Curl Guangdong Virus, May Suppress Post-transcriptional Gene Silencing by Interacting With BAM1 Protein. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Soto-Burgos, J.; Bassham, D.C. SnRK1 activates autophagy via the TOR signaling pathway in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0182591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Li, F.; Xu, X.; Huang, C.; Gu, Z.; Cao, L.; Hu, T.; Ding, M.; Li, Z.; Zhou, X. The AC 5 protein encoded by Mungbean yellow mosaic India virus is a pathogenicity determinant that suppresses RNA silencing-based antiviral defenses. New Phytol. 2015, 208, 555–569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Yang, X.; Xie, Y.; Raja, P.; Li, S.; Wolf, J.N.; Shen, Q.; Bisaro, D.M.; Zhou, X. Suppression of Methylation-Mediated Transcriptional Gene Silencing by βC1-SAHH Protein Interaction during Geminivirus-Betasatellite Infection. PLoS Pathog. 2011, 7, e1002329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Li, F.; Zhao, N.; Li, Z.; Xu, X.; Wang, Y.; Yang, X.; Liu, S.-S.; Wang, A.; Zhou, X. A calmodulin-like protein suppresses RNA silencing and promotes geminivirus infection by degrading SGS3 via the autophagy pathway in Nicotiana benthamiana. PLoS Pathog. 2017, 13, e1006213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Annacondia, M.L.; Markovic, D.; Reig-Valiente, J.L.; Scaltsoyiannes, V.; Pieterse, C.M.; Ninkovic, V.; Slotkin, R.K.; Martinez, G. Aphid feeding induces the relaxation of epigenetic control and the associated regulation of the defense response in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 2021, 230, 1185–1200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Yang, L.; Meng, D.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Lang, C.; Jin, T.; Zhou, X. The viral suppressor HCPro decreases DNA methylation and activates auxin biosynthesis genes. Virology 2020, 546, 133–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Varallyay, E.; Oláh, E.; Havelda, Z. Independent parallel functions of p19 plant viral suppressor of RNA silencing required for effective suppressor activity. Nucleic Acids Res. 2014, 42, 599–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Michaeli, S.; Clavel, M.; Lechner, E.; Viotti, C.; Wu, J.; Dubois, M.; Hacquard, T.; Derrien, B.; Izquierdo, E.; Lecorbeiller, M.; et al. The viral F-box protein P0 induces an ER-derived autophagy degradation pathway for the clearance of membrane-bound AGO1. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2019, 116, 22872–22883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Zhang, X.; Yazaki, J.; Sundaresan, A.; Cokus, S.; Chan, S.W.-L.; Chen, H.; Henderson, I.R.; Shinn, P.; Pellegrini, M.; Jacobsen, S.E.; et al. Genome-wide High-Resolution Mapping and Functional Analysis of DNA Methylation in Arabidopsis. Cell 2006, 126, 1189–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Choi, J.; Lyons, D.B.; Kim, M.Y.; Moore, J.D.; Zilberman, D. DNA Methylation and Histone H1 Jointly Repress Transposable Elements and Aberrant Intragenic Transcripts. Mol. Cell 2020, 77, 310–323.e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gallego-Bartolomé, J. DNA methylation in plants: Mechanisms and tools for targeted manipulation. New Phytol. 2020, 227, 38–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. El-Sappah, A.H.; Yan, K.; Huang, Q.; Islam Md, M.; Li, Q.; Wang, Y.; Khan, M.S.; Zhao, X.; Mir, R.R.; Li, J.; et al. Comprehensive Mechanism of Gene Silencing and Its Role in Plant Growth and Development. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 705249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lucibelli, F.; Valoroso, M.C.; Aceto, S. Plant DNA Methylation: An Epigenetic Mark in Development, Environmental Interactions, and Evolution. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 8299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Alvarado-Marchena, L.; Martínez-Pérez, M.; Úbeda, J.R.; Pallas, V.; Aparicio, F. Impact of the Potential m6A Modification Sites at the 3′UTR of Alfalfa Mosaic Virus RNA3 in the Viral Infection. Viruses 2022, 14, 1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kierzek, E. The thermodynamic stability of RNA duplexes and hairpins containing N6-alkyladenosines and 2-methylthio-N6-alkyladenosines. Nucleic Acids Res. 2003, 31, 4472–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Haugland, R.A.; Cline, M.G. Post-transcriptional Modifications of Oat Coleoptile Ribonucleic Acids: 5′-Terminal Capping and Methylation of Internal Nucleosides in Poly(A)-Rich RNA. Eur. J. Biochem. 1980, 104, 271–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Nichols, J.L.; Welder, L. A modified nucleotide in the poly(A) tract of maize RNA. Biochim. Et Biophys. Acta (BBA)—Nucleic Acids Protein Synth. 1981, 652, 99–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Shinde, H.; Dudhate, A.; Kadam, U.S.; Hong, J.C. RNA methylation in plants: An overview. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1132959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. He, H.; Ge, L.; Chen, Y.; Zhao, S.; Li, Z.; Zhou, X.; Li, F. m6A modification of plant virus enables host recognition by NMD factors in plants. Sci. China Life Sci. 2024, 67, 161–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. He, H.; Jia, M.; Liu, J.; Zhou, X.; Li, F. Roles of RNA m6A modifications in plant-virus interactions. Stress Biol. 2023, 3, 57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Yue, J.; Wei, Y.; Zhao, M. The Reversible Methylation of m6A Is Involved in Plant Virus Infection. Biology 2022, 11, 271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zaccara, S.; Ries, R.J.; Jaffrey, S.R. Reading, writing and erasing mRNA methylation. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 2019, 20, 608–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Hu, J.; Cai, J.; Xu, T.; Kang, H. Epitranscriptomic mRNA modifications governing plant stress responses: Underlying mechanism and potential application. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2022, 20, 2245–2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kouzarides, T. Chromatin Modifications and Their Function. Cell 2007, 128, 693–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Xie, S.-S.; Duan, C.-G. Epigenetic regulation of plant immunity: From chromatin codes to plant disease resistance. aBIOTECH 2023, 4, 124–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Corrêa, R.L.; Kutnjak, D.; Ambrós, S.; Bustos, M.; Elena, S.F. Identification of epigenetically regulated genes involved in plant-virus interaction and their role in virus-triggered induced resistance. BMC Plant Biol. 2024, 24, 172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kang, H.; Fan, T.; Wu, J.; Zhu, Y.; Shen, W.-H. Histone modification and chromatin remodeling in plant response to pathogens. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 986940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Tariq, M.; Paszkowski, J. DNA and histone methylation in plants. Trends Genet. 2004, 20, 244–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Tao, Z.; Yan, F.; Hahn, M.; Ma, Z. Regulatory roles of epigenetic modifications in plant-phytopathogen interactions. Crop Health 2023, 1, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Pooggin, M. How Can Plant DNA Viruses Evade siRNA-Directed DNA Methylation and Silencing? Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2013, 14, 15233–15259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Zerbini, F.M.; Briddon, R.W.; Idris, A.; Martin, D.P.; Moriones, E.; Navas-Castillo, J.; Rivera-Bustamante, R.; Roumagnac, P.; Varsani, A.; ICTV Report Consortium. ICTV Virus Taxonomy Profile: Geminiviridae. J. Gen. Virol. 2017, 98, 131–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Gupta, N.; Reddy, K.; Bhattacharyya, D.; Chakraborty, S. Plant responses to geminivirus infection: Guardians of the plant immunity. Virol. J. 2021, 18, 143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  91. Coursey, T.; Regedanz, E.; Bisaro, D.M. Arabidopsis RNA Polymerase V Mediates Enhanced Compaction and Silencing of Geminivirus and Transposon Chromatin during Host Recovery from Infection. J. Virol. 2018, 92, e01320-17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Paprotka, T.; Deuschle, K.; Metzler, V.; Jeske, H. Conformation-Selective Methylation of Geminivirus DNA. J. Virol. 2011, 85, 12001–12012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Hanley-Bowdoin, L.; Bejarano, E.R.; Robertson, D.; Mansoor, S. Geminiviruses: Masters at redirecting and reprogramming plant processes. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 777–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Arif, M.; Atta, S.; Bashir, M.A.; Hussain, A.; Khan, M.I.; Farooq, S.; Hannan, A.; Islam, S.U.; Umar, U.U.D.; Khan, M.; et al. Molecular characterization and RSV Co-infection of Nicotiana benthamiana with three distinct begomoviruses. Methods 2020, 183, 43–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Secco, N.; Sheikh, A.H.; Hirt, H. Insights into the role of N6-methyladenosine (m6A) in plant-virus interactions. J. Virol. 2025, 99, e0159824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Liu, J.; Wu, X.; Fang, Y.; Liu, Y.; Bello, E.O.; Li, Y.; Xiong, R.; Li, Y.; Fu, Z.Q.; Wang, A.; et al. A plant RNA virus inhibits NPR1 sumoylation and subverts NPR1-mediated plant immunity. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 3580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Yang, L.; Fang, Y.; An, C.; Dong, L.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, H.; Xie, Q.; Guo, H. C 2-mediated decrease in DNA methylation, accumulation of si RNA s, and increase in expression for genes involved in defense pathways in plants infected with beet severe curly top virus. Plant J. 2013, 73, 910–917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Gui, X.; Liu, C.; Qi, Y.; Zhou, X. Geminiviruses employ host DNA glycosylases to subvert DNA methylation-mediated defense. Nat. Commun. 2022, 13, 575. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  99. Zhao, J.-H.; Liu, X.-L.; Fang, Y.-Y.; Fang, R.-X.; Guo, H.-S. CMV2b-Dependent Regulation of Host Defense Pathways in the Context of Viral Infection. Viruses 2018, 10, 618. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Garcia-Ruiz, H.; Carbonell, A.; Hoyer, J.S.; Fahlgren, N.; Gilbert, K.B.; Takeda, A.; Giampetruzzi, A.; Ruiz, M.T.G.; 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]
  101. Fernández-Calvino, L.; Martínez-Priego, L.; Szabo, E.Z.; Guzmán-Benito, I.; González, I.; Canto, T.; Lakatos, L.; Llave, C. Tobacco rattle virus 16K silencing suppressor binds ARGONAUTE 4 and inhibits formation of RNA silencing complexes. J. Gen. Virol. 2016, 97, 246–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Hamim, I.; Green, J.C.; Borth, W.B.; Melzer, M.J.; Wang, Y.N.; Hu, J.S. First Report of Banana bunchy top virus in Heliconia spp. On Hawaii. Plant Dis. 2017, 101, 2153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Hamim, I.; Sekine, K.-T.; Komatsu, K. How do emerging long-read sequencing technologies function in transforming the plant pathology research landscape? Plant Mol. Biol. 2022, 110, 469–484. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Hull, R.; Centre, J.I. (Eds.) Plant Virology, 5th ed.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  105. Noris, E.; Catoni, M. Role of methylation during geminivirus infection. In Applied Plant Biotechnology for Improving Resistance to Biotic Stress; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; pp. 291–305. [Google Scholar]
  106. Butterbach, P.; Verlaan, M.G.; Dullemans, A.; Lohuis, D.; Visser, R.G.F.; Bai, Y.; Kormelink, R. Tomato yellow leaf curl virus resistance by Ty-1 involves increased cytosine methylation of viral genomes and is compromised by cucumber mosaic virus infection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2014, 111, 12942–12947. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Sahu, P.P.; Rai, N.K.; Chakraborty, S.; Singh, M.; Chandrappa, P.H.; Ramesh, B.; Chattopadhyay, D.; Prasad, M. Tomato cultivar tolerant to Tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus infection induces virus-specific short interfering RNA accumulation and defence-associated host gene expression. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2010, 11, 531–544. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  108. Rodríguez-Negrete, E.A.; Carrillo-Tripp, J.; Rivera-Bustamante, R.F. RNA Silencing against Geminivirus: Complementary Action of Posttranscriptional Gene Silencing and Transcriptional Gene Silencing in Host Recovery. J. Virol. 2009, 83, 1332–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  109. Li, Y.; Chen, J.; Sun, Z. N6-methyladenosine (m6A) modification: Emerging regulators in plant-virus interactions. Virology 2025, 603, 110373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Glick, E.; Zrachya, A.; Levy, Y.; Mett, A.; Gidoni, D.; Belausov, E.; Citovsky, V.; Gafni, Y. Interaction with host SGS3 is required for suppression of RNA silencing by tomato yellow leaf curl virus V2 protein. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2008, 105, 157–161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Yang, L.; Lang, C.; Wu, Y.; Meng, D.; Yang, T.; Li, D.; Jin, T.; Zhou, X. ROS1-mediated decrease in DNA methylation and increase in expression of defense genes and stress response genes in Arabidopsis thaliana due to abiotic stresses. BMC Plant Biol. 2022, 22, 104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hamim, I.; Borth, W.B.; Melzer, M.J.; Suzuki, J.Y.; Wall, M.M.; Hu, J.S. Occurrence of tomato leaf curl Bangladesh virus and associated subviral DNA molecules in papaya in Bangladesh: Molecular detection and characterization. Arch. Virol. 2019, 164, 1661–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Hamim, I.; Borth, W.B.; Suzuki, J.Y.; Melzer, M.J.; Wall, M.M.; Hu, J.S. Molecular characterization of tomato leaf curl Joydebpur virus and tomato leaf curl New Delhi virus associated with severe leaf curl symptoms of papaya in Bangladesh. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2020, 158, 457–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Martin, K.; Singh, J.; Hill, J.H.; Whitham, S.A.; Cannon, S.B. Dynamic transcriptome profiling of Bean Common Mosaic Virus (BCMV) infection in Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). BMC Genom. 2016, 17, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Marquez-Molins, J.; Cheng, J.; Corell-Sierra, J.; Juarez-Gonzalez, V.T.; Villalba-Bermell, P.; Annacondia, M.L.; Gomez, G.; Martinez, G. Hop stunt viroid infection induces heterochromatin reorganization. New Phytol. 2024, 243, 2351–2367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  116. Ding, X.; Wang, F.; Liu, P.; Zhang, J.; Wu, Z.; Han, Y.H.; Wu, J. Emerging Viral Threats in Rice: A Decade of Discovery and Implications for Crop Protection. Plant Cell Environ. 2025, 48, 8702–8711. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  117. Castillo-Gonzalez, C.; Liu, X.; Huang, C.; Zhao, C.; Ma, Z.; Hu, T.; Sun, F.; Zhou, Y.; Zhou, H.; Wang, X.-J.; et al. Geminivirus-encoded TrAP suppressor inhibits the histone methyltransferase SUVH4/KYP to counter host defense. Elife 2015, 4, e06671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Elvira-González, L.; Blevins, T.; Heinlein, M. Small RNA mobility and plant virus diseases. J. Exp. Bot. 2025, eraf226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Dalakouras, A.; Ganopoulos, I. Induction of Promoter DNA Methylation Upon High-Pressure Spraying of Double-Stranded RNA in Plants. Agronomy 2021, 11, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Xiang, R.; Ahmad, B.; Liang, C.; Shi, X.; Yang, L.; Du, G.; Wang, L. Systematic genome-wide and expression analysis of RNA-directed DNA methylation pathway genes in grapes predicts their involvement in multiple biological processes. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1089392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ma, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wu, L.; Moffett, P. Resistance gene Ty-1 restricts TYLCV infection in tomato by increasing RNA silencing. Virol. J. 2024, 21, 256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  122. Shen, Q.; Liu, Z.; Song, F.; Xie, Q.; Hanley-Bowdoin, L.; Zhou, X. Tomato SlSnRK1 Protein Interacts with and Phosphorylates βC1, a Pathogenesis Protein Encoded by a Geminivirus β-Satellite. Plant Physiol. 2011, 157, 1394–1406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Shen, W.; Bobay, B.G.; Greeley, L.A.; Reyes, M.I.; Rajabu, C.A.; Blackburn, R.K.; Dallas, M.B.; Goshe, M.B.; Ascencio-Ibáñez, J.T.; Hanley-Bowdoin, L. Sucrose Nonfermenting 1-Related Protein Kinase 1 Phosphorylates a Geminivirus Rep Protein to Impair Viral Replication and Infection. Plant Physiol. 2018, 178, 372–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  124. Shen, W.; Dallas, M.B.; Goshe, M.B.; Hanley-Bowdoin, L. SnRK1 Phosphorylation of AL2 Delays Cabbage Leaf Curl Virus Infection in Arabidopsis. J. Virol. 2014, 88, 10598–10612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Akbar, S.; Wei, Y.; Zhang, M.-Q. RNA Interference: Promising Approach to Combat Plant Viruses. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 5312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Wu, Q.; Luo, Y.; Lu, R.; Lau, N.; Lai, E.C.; Li, W.-X.; Ding, S.-W. Virus discovery by deep sequencing and assembly of virus-derived small silencing RNAs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2010, 107, 1606–1611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Massart, S.; Chiumenti, M.; De Jonghe, K.; Glover, R.; Haegeman, A.; Koloniuk, I.; Komínek, P.; Kreuze, J.; Kutnjak, D.; Lotos, L.; et al. Virus Detection by High-Throughput Sequencing of Small RNAs: Large-Scale Performance Testing of Sequence Analysis Strategies. Phytopathology 2019, 109, 488–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Zulfiqar, S.; Farooq, M.A.; Zhao, T.; Wang, P.; Tabusam, J.; Wang, Y.; Xuan, S.; Zhao, J.; Chen, X.; Shen, S.; et al. Virus-Induced Gene Silencing (VIGS): A Powerful Tool for Crop Improvement and Its Advancement towards Epigenetics. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 5608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Mardini, M.; Kazancev, M.; Ivoilova, E.; Utkina, V.; Vlasova, A.; Demurin, Y.; Soloviev, A.; Kirov, I. Advancing virus-induced gene silencing in sunflower: Key factors of VIGS spreading and a novel simple protocol. Plant Methods 2024, 20, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. García, A.; Aragonés, V.; Gioiosa, S.; Herraiz, F.J.; Ortiz-García, P.; Prohens, J.; Daròs, J.; Pasin, F. Comparative genomics-driven design of virus-delivered short RNA inserts triggering robust gene silencing. Plant Biotechnol. J. 2025, 23, 4930–4932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Kim, J.H. Multifaceted chromatin structure and transcription changes in plant stress response. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Zhi, P.; Chang, C. Exploiting Epigenetic Variations for Crop Disease Resistance Improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 692328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Wu, W.; Fan, G. The role of epigenetics in plant pathogens interactions under the changing environments: A systematic review. Plant Stress 2025, 15, 100753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Qi, Q.; Hu, B.; Jiang, W.; Wang, Y.; Yan, J.; Ma, F.; Guan, Q.; Xu, J. Advances in plant epigenome editing research and its application in plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  135. Vatanparast, M.; Merkel, L.; Amari, K. Exogenous Application of dsRNA in Plant Protection: Efficiency, Safety Concerns and Risk Assessment. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 6530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Dubrovina, A.S.; Kiselev, K.V. Exogenous RNAs for Gene Regulation and Plant Resistance. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chen, C.; Imran, M.; Feng, X.; Shen, X.; Sun, Z. Spray-induced gene silencing for crop protection: Recent advances and emerging trends. Front. Plant Sci. 2025, 16, 1527944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Sastry, K.S.; Zitter, T.A. Management of Virus and Viroid Diseases of Crops in the Tropics. In Plant Virus and Viroid Diseases in the Tropics—Volume 2: Epidemiology and Management; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2014; pp. 149–480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Wale, S.; Platt, B.; Cattlin, N.D. Diseases, Pests and Disorders of Potatoes; Taylor & Francis: London, UK, 2008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Ordon, F.; Habekuss, A.; Kastirr, U.; Rabenstein, F.; Kühne, T. Virus Resistance in Cereals: Sources of Resistance, Genetics and Breeding. J. Phytopathol. 2009, 157, 535–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Abo, M.E.; Sy, A.A. Rice Virus Diseases: Epidemiology and Management Strategies. J. Sustain. Agric. 1997, 11, 113–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Rashid, M.-O.; Wang, Y.; Han, C.-G. Molecular Detection of Potato Viruses in Bangladesh and Their Phylogenetic Analysis. Plants 2020, 9, 1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Viruses 18 00017 g001
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) and transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) as interconnected antiviral defense pathways in plants. In the left panel, PTGS is illustrated, where viral RNA molecules are recognized and degraded by 21–22 nt small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). These 21–22 nt siRNAs can also feed into a non-canonical RdDM pathway, resulting in sparse and locus-specific DNA methylation. This methylation recruits RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV), which initiates the canonical RdDM pathway. Pol IV transcribes single-stranded RNA (ssRNA), which is then converted into double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) by RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE 2 (RDR2). The dsRNA is processed into 24-nt siRNAs, which guide de novo DNA methylation through ARGONAUTE proteins and associated factors. In addition, histone modifications and chromatin remodeling occur at these loci, further reinforcing transcriptional repression (right panel). Together, these epigenetic changes establish stable TGS and effectively inhibit viral DNA transcription. Arrows indicate the direction of molecular flow; the blue dotted line separates cytoplasmic and nuclear processes.
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) and transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) as interconnected antiviral defense pathways in plants. In the left panel, PTGS is illustrated, where viral RNA molecules are recognized and degraded by 21–22 nt small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). These 21–22 nt siRNAs can also feed into a non-canonical RdDM pathway, resulting in sparse and locus-specific DNA methylation. This methylation recruits RNA polymerase IV (Pol IV), which initiates the canonical RdDM pathway. Pol IV transcribes single-stranded RNA (ssRNA), which is then converted into double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) by RNA-DEPENDENT RNA POLYMERASE 2 (RDR2). The dsRNA is processed into 24-nt siRNAs, which guide de novo DNA methylation through ARGONAUTE proteins and associated factors. In addition, histone modifications and chromatin remodeling occur at these loci, further reinforcing transcriptional repression (right panel). Together, these epigenetic changes establish stable TGS and effectively inhibit viral DNA transcription. Arrows indicate the direction of molecular flow; the blue dotted line separates cytoplasmic and nuclear processes.
Viruses 18 00017 g001
Viruses 18 00017 g002
Figure 2. DNA methylation (red circles) occurring in symmetric CG and CHG contexts, as well as asymmetric CHH contexts (where H = A, T, or C). DNA methyltransferases are recruited to specific sequences: MET1 maintains CG methylation, CMT3 catalyzes CHG methylation, while CMT2 and DRM2 establish CHH methylation de novo. The red circles in the figure represent methylated cytosines at these target sites.
Figure 2. DNA methylation (red circles) occurring in symmetric CG and CHG contexts, as well as asymmetric CHH contexts (where H = A, T, or C). DNA methyltransferases are recruited to specific sequences: MET1 maintains CG methylation, CMT3 catalyzes CHG methylation, while CMT2 and DRM2 establish CHH methylation de novo. The red circles in the figure represent methylated cytosines at these target sites.
Viruses 18 00017 g002
Viruses 18 00017 g003
Figure 3. The dynamic regulation of plant viral RNA by m6A modification. Viral RNA entering the host is methylated by m6A methyltransferases (‘writers’), adding m6A marks. These marks can be removed by m6A demethylases such as ALKBH9B (‘erasers’), reversing methylation. YTH domain proteins act as ‘readers,’ recognizing m6A-modified RNA and mediating downstream responses during host-virus interactions.
Figure 3. The dynamic regulation of plant viral RNA by m6A modification. Viral RNA entering the host is methylated by m6A methyltransferases (‘writers’), adding m6A marks. These marks can be removed by m6A demethylases such as ALKBH9B (‘erasers’), reversing methylation. YTH domain proteins act as ‘readers,’ recognizing m6A-modified RNA and mediating downstream responses during host-virus interactions.
Viruses 18 00017 g003
Viruses 18 00017 g004
Figure 4. Histone-mediated epigenetic mechanisms in plants. H3K4me2 marks contribute to epigenetic memory and can prime genes for transcriptional regulation. H3K9me2 collaborates with DNA methylation in a reinforcing loop: H3K9me2 recruits CMT3 to maintain CHG methylation, while DNA methylation recruits SUVH enzymes to sustain H3K9me2, collectively reinforcing gene silencing. Additionally, the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) deposits H3K27me3 at specific loci, compacting chromatin and promoting long-term transcriptional repression.
Figure 4. Histone-mediated epigenetic mechanisms in plants. H3K4me2 marks contribute to epigenetic memory and can prime genes for transcriptional regulation. H3K9me2 collaborates with DNA methylation in a reinforcing loop: H3K9me2 recruits CMT3 to maintain CHG methylation, while DNA methylation recruits SUVH enzymes to sustain H3K9me2, collectively reinforcing gene silencing. Additionally, the Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 (PRC2) deposits H3K27me3 at specific loci, compacting chromatin and promoting long-term transcriptional repression.
Viruses 18 00017 g004
Viruses 18 00017 g005
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of geminivirus interactions with plant epigenetic defenses and viral evasion strategies. After entering the plant cell, viral single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) is targeted by post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) in the cytoplasm and transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) in the nucleus. In the nucleus, viral proteins V2 and βC1 interfere with AGO4, blocking RdDM-guided DNA methylation and promoting viral accumulation. Additionally, suppressors, including AC2/AL2, AC4/C4, Rep, and AC5, disrupt TGS by inhibiting key components of the methylation machinery. In the cytoplasm, βC1 degrades SGS3, impairing RDR6-dependent amplification of secondary siRNAs, while C4 also contributes to reduced siRNA accumulation. Furthermore, active DNA demethylation mediated by recruitment of host DNA glycosylases reverses methylation marks on viral genomes, enhancing replication and virulence.
Figure 5. Schematic diagram of geminivirus interactions with plant epigenetic defenses and viral evasion strategies. After entering the plant cell, viral single-stranded DNA (ssDNA) is targeted by post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) in the cytoplasm and transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) in the nucleus. In the nucleus, viral proteins V2 and βC1 interfere with AGO4, blocking RdDM-guided DNA methylation and promoting viral accumulation. Additionally, suppressors, including AC2/AL2, AC4/C4, Rep, and AC5, disrupt TGS by inhibiting key components of the methylation machinery. In the cytoplasm, βC1 degrades SGS3, impairing RDR6-dependent amplification of secondary siRNAs, while C4 also contributes to reduced siRNA accumulation. Furthermore, active DNA demethylation mediated by recruitment of host DNA glycosylases reverses methylation marks on viral genomes, enhancing replication and virulence.
Viruses 18 00017 g005
Viruses 18 00017 g006
Figure 6. Schematic representation of plant epigenetic defense against RNA viruses and viral counter strategies. (A) m6A writers catalyze the addition of a methyl group to adenosine residues on viral or host mRNAs, creating an m6A mark. m6A readers recognize this modification, leading to targeted RNA degradation and suppression of viral replication. (B) m6A erasers remove methyl groups from mRNAs, allowing translation and replication of viral RNAs, production of viral proteins, and successful infection of plant cells. (C) RNA interference pathway: single-stranded viral RNA (ssRNA) is converted into double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), which is processed by Dicer-like (DCL) enzymes into small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). siRNAs are loaded into the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), where the guide strand is selected to recognize complementary viral mRNAs, resulting in cleavage, degradation, and epigenetic gene silencing.
Figure 6. Schematic representation of plant epigenetic defense against RNA viruses and viral counter strategies. (A) m6A writers catalyze the addition of a methyl group to adenosine residues on viral or host mRNAs, creating an m6A mark. m6A readers recognize this modification, leading to targeted RNA degradation and suppression of viral replication. (B) m6A erasers remove methyl groups from mRNAs, allowing translation and replication of viral RNAs, production of viral proteins, and successful infection of plant cells. (C) RNA interference pathway: single-stranded viral RNA (ssRNA) is converted into double-stranded RNA (dsRNA), which is processed by Dicer-like (DCL) enzymes into small interfering RNAs (siRNAs). siRNAs are loaded into the RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC), where the guide strand is selected to recognize complementary viral mRNAs, resulting in cleavage, degradation, and epigenetic gene silencing.
Viruses 18 00017 g006
Viruses 18 00017 g007
Figure 7. dsRNA and/or siRNA can be applied on virus-infected plants by different approaches such as infiltration, spray, and microinjection. dsRNA is processed by DCL and then associates with RISC, triggering transcriptional gene silencing via the RdDM pathway, so the plant shows no symptoms of virus infection. In contrast, siRNA bypasses DCL, directly binds to RISC, and causes epigenetic gene silencing.
Figure 7. dsRNA and/or siRNA can be applied on virus-infected plants by different approaches such as infiltration, spray, and microinjection. dsRNA is processed by DCL and then associates with RISC, triggering transcriptional gene silencing via the RdDM pathway, so the plant shows no symptoms of virus infection. In contrast, siRNA bypasses DCL, directly binds to RISC, and causes epigenetic gene silencing.
Viruses 18 00017 g007
Table 3. Comparative synthesis of epigenetic and epitranscriptomic evasion strategies in plant DNA and RNA viruses.
Table 3. Comparative synthesis of epigenetic and epitranscriptomic evasion strategies in plant DNA and RNA viruses.
CriteriaDNA VirusesRNA VirusesReferences
Genome type & replication sitedsDNA or ssDNA forming minichromosomes in the nucleus (e.g., Geminiviridae, Caulimoviridae)ssRNA (+ or − sense) or dsRNA replicating mainly in the cytoplasm (e.g., Potyviridae, Tobamoviridae, Bromoviridae)[51,116]
Plant silencing mechanismTranscriptional gene silencing (TGS) via RNA-directed DNA methylation (RdDM) and repressive histone marks on viral minichromosomesPost-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS) mediated by siRNAs and RISC targeting viral RNAs; RdDM-mediated TGS generally less relevant[116,117]
Host factors involvedPol IV/V, histone methyltransferases (KYP/SUVH), DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANSFERASES (DRM), RDRs, DCLs producing 24-nt siRNAs, MET1DCL2/4, RDR6, ARGONAUTE proteins (AGO1/AGO2), RISC complexes, ALKBH9B (RNA demethylase)[51,116,117,118]
Viral countermeasuresViral factors (βC1, C2; AC2/AL2, V2, C4) interfere with cytosine methylation, suppress RdDM/TGS, and modulate host histone marks.Viral factors (VSRs: CMV 2b, TRV 16K; AlkB-like RNA demethylases) modulate host microRNA pathways and alter m6A on viral RNA to evade PTGS.[79,95]
Cross-talk/multi-layered responsesDNA viruses produce RNAs entering PTGS pathways; RNA virus infections can indirectly affect host DNA methylation or RdDM components, triggering multi-layered responsesExperimental use of 24-nt siRNAs or high-pressure dsRNA delivery can induce promoter methylation and TGS, allowing targeting of RNA virus regions under specific conditions[119,120]
Representative examplesTYLCV, CaLCuV, BCTV, PepGMVTMV, CMV, AMV, PepMV[88,95]
Functional impact on virus/hostSlows viral replication, enables partial symptom recovery; countermeasure activity enhances viral transcriptionProtects viral RNA from degradation, alters translation efficiency, systemic movement; countermeasures allow evasion of PTGS[27,91]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hamim, I.; Sakib, S.J.; Hossain, M.R.; Hia, J.N.; Hasan, M.; Muhimine, A.A.; Hu, J.S. Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants for Disease Management. Viruses 2026, 18, 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/v18010017

AMA Style

Hamim I, Sakib SJ, Hossain MR, Hia JN, Hasan M, Muhimine AA, Hu JS. Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants for Disease Management. Viruses. 2026; 18(1):17. https://doi.org/10.3390/v18010017

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hamim, Islam, Sadman Jawad Sakib, Md. Readoy Hossain, Jaima Noor Hia, Maria Hasan, Alvi Al Muhimine, and John S. Hu. 2026. "Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants for Disease Management" Viruses 18, no. 1: 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/v18010017

APA Style

Hamim, I., Sakib, S. J., Hossain, M. R., Hia, J. N., Hasan, M., Muhimine, A. A., & Hu, J. S. (2026). Epigenetic and Epitranscriptomic Antiviral Responses in Plants for Disease Management. Viruses, 18(1), 17. https://doi.org/10.3390/v18010017

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