Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42250277›Full record

ReviewThe Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology2026

How to frustrate a plant pathogen.

Gregory Knight, Jonathan Heddle, Adam R Bentham

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in The Plant journal : for cell and molecular biology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Gregory KnightCentre for Programmable Biological Matter, Department of Biosciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Jonathan HeddleCentre for Programmable Biological Matter, Department of Biosciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.
Adam R BenthamCentre for Programmable Biological Matter, Department of Biosciences, Durham University, Durham, DH1 3LE, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5906-0962

Funding

Leverhulme Trust LIP-2022-010
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Sequence-unrelated but structurally similar (SUSS) effector families represent a distinctive evolutionary strategy among plant pathogen virulence proteins. Within families such as MAX, LARS and RALPH effectors, individual proteins maintain nearly identical three-dimensional folds despite minimal sequence identities, whilst targeting functionally diverse host cellular processes. This decoupling of structural conservation from functional specificity challenges traditional precepts of the classic structure-function paradigm and reveals how pathogen effectors exploit stable protein scaffolds as platforms for rapid functional diversification through extreme sequence variation. Comparative structural analyses suggest that surface frustration, regions of local energetic instability essential for fold flexibility, may be conserved across SUSS family members despite sequence divergence. This conservation creates potential vulnerabilities that could be exploited for resistance engineering. Rather than targeting individual effector-host interactions, frustration-guided design of molecular sponges, synthetic integrated domains or proteome degradation warheads could potentially neutralise entire SUSS effector families. This review explores the mechanisms of functionalisation by SUSS effectors and suggests strategies combining structural genomics, surface frustration analysis and AI-driven protein design for developing broad-spectrum resistance against major classes of plant pathogen effectors.

Indexed as

Plant DiseasesPlant ProteinsPlantsVirulence FactorsHost-Pathogen InteractionsPlant ProteinsVirulence Factorsbioengineeringbiophysicseffectorsfrustrationplant immunityprotein designstructural biology

Identifiers

PMID42250277
PMCPMC13242284

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.