ScienceGuardians

ScienceGuardians

Did You Know?

ScienceGuardians serves the community for free

Genetic and molecular landscapes of the generalist phytopathogen Botrytis cinerea

Authors: Ritu Singh,Celine Caseys,Daniel J. Kliebenstein
Journal: Molecular Plant Pathology
Publisher: Wiley
Publish date: 2023-12
ISSN: 1464-6722 DOI: 10.1111/mpp.13404
View on Publisher's Website
Up
0
Down
::

The authors present a compelling narrative on the role of cross-kingdom small RNAs (ck-sRNAs) in Botrytis cinerea virulence, but a deeper inspection reveals a significant overinterpretation of the evidence presented. The claim that ck-sRNAs contribute to the pathogen’s extraordinary host generalism by targeting diverse plant immune genes is not sufficiently substantiated by the data. Notably, the paper repeatedly emphasizes the variability of retrotransposon-derived sRNAs across populations and suggests a stochastic “shotgun” mechanism of host targeting. However, this hypothesis is presented without direct validation of sRNA functionality across the claimed 1600+ host species. The cited sRNA–host gene interactions are limited to a few model species (e.g., Arabidopsis, tomato), and the leap to generalize these findings across the entire host phylogeny is unsupported and premature. Without systematic in planta validation across a phylogenetically diverse host panel, the suggestion that sRNAs are evolving adaptively to modulate host immunity across plant lineages is speculative and potentially misleading.

 

All Replies

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

3 months, 1 week ago

Moreover, the genomic diversity analysis suffers from a critical methodological flaw. While the paper compiles an impressive number of historical genotyping studies (>10,000 strains), the underlying marker systems (boty / flipper presence, microsatellites) are poorly harmonized across datasets, and the metadata integration lacks statistical rigor. The authors donot account for sampling bias (e.g., overrepresentation of viticulture-associated strains), nor do they apply phylogenetically corrected models to dissect host versus geographic effects. The meta-analysis infers environmental and host-driven selection shaping diversity, yet provides no robust quantitative evidence beyond correlation. Most notably, their assertion that high genetic recombination contributes to host generalism are not reconciled with the absence of experimentally validated genotype-by-host phenotype data.

2 days, 1 hour ago

Basically, in Section 4, they did a big meta-analysis on genetic diversity using data from over 10,000 strains across 58 studies. They looked at stuff like transposon genotypes (boty, flipper, vacuma) and microsatellites. The problem is, they just lumped all this data together without really accounting for the wildly different sampling methods, years, locations, and hosts from each original study.

It’s like comparing apples and oranges — some studies might have sampled only from fungicide-treated vineyards, others from organic strawberry fields, in different seasons, over a 30-year span. These factors are known to heavily influence the genetic structure of B. cinerea populations. By mashing it all together, they might be creating patterns that look real but are actually just artifacts of uneven sampling bias. For example, the shift in transposa genotype frequency over time they mention in Figure 2c could easily be explained by changes in what crops were popular to sample from, not an actual evolutionary trend.

So, while the effort to synthesize all this public data is cool, the noise from inconsistent sampling probably compromises the reliability of their diversity patterns and the conclusions they draw about what’s driving them (geography vs. host vs. climate). They even admit it’s a limitation, but then go ahead and build their narrative on it anyway. Not the most robust foundation for those big-picture claims.

Hope that helps!

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)

  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.