Evolution and Innovation: How Plant NLR Genes Shape Disease Resistance and Biomedical Discovery

Abstract

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of the Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) gene family, a cornerstone of plant innate immunity. We explore the foundational evolutionary mechanisms—tandem duplication, whole-genome duplication, and birth/death models—that drive NLR diversification across plant lineages, from crops to wild relatives. Methodological advances for NLR discovery are detailed, including genome-wide identification pipelines, expression-based functional prediction, and high-throughput transformation platforms that enable rapid gene validation. The review addresses key challenges such as balancing immunity with fitness costs, avoiding autoimmunity, and optimizing expression for transferable resistance. Finally, we present validation strategies through comparative genomics, synteny analysis, and expression profiling, highlighting how understanding plant NLR evolution offers valuable paradigms for immune receptor research with broad implications for biomedical and clinical applications.

The Genomic Arms Race: Evolutionary Forces Shaping the Plant NLR Repertoire

Plant intracellular immunity is largely governed by a sophisticated repertoire of nucleotide-binding and leucine-rich-repeat receptors (NLRs) that function as specific sensors of pathogen invasion [1]. These proteins recognize pathogen-derived effector molecules and initiate robust defense responses, typically accompanied by programmed cell death known as the hypersensitive response [1]. NLRs follow a gene-for-gene relationship first proposed by Harold Flor in the 1950s, where specific plant resistance (R) genes correspond to specific pathogen avirulence (AVR) genes [1]. The NLR family has undergone tremendous diversification throughout plant evolution, resulting in complex architectures and classification systems that reflect their specialized functions in plant immunity [1] [2]. This technical guide examines the core architecture, classification, and experimental frameworks for studying the three principal NLR subfamilies—CNL, TNL, and RNL—within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution in plants.

Core Architectural Domains of NLR Proteins

NLR proteins exhibit a conserved tripartite domain architecture that defines them as STAND (Signal Transduction ATPases with Numerous Domains) proteins [1]. This conserved structure consists of three fundamental components:

• N-terminal domain: Serves as a signaling domain that mediates downstream immune responses following activation. This domain shows the greatest variation and defines the major NLR subclasses [1].
• Central nucleotide-binding and oligomerization domain (NOD): In plant NLRs, this is exclusively an NB-ARC (Nucleotide-Binding adaptor shared by APAF-1, certain R gene products, and CED-4) domain that functions as a molecular switch through ADP/ATP exchange [1].
• C-terminal superstructure-forming repeats (SSFRs): Typically leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains that often mediate pathogen recognition and maintain autoinhibitory intramolecular interactions in the resting state [1].

Plant NLRs exist in an inactive ADP-bound conformation in their resting state and transition to an active ATP-bound state upon pathogen perception, enabling them to initiate immune signaling cascades [1]. The NB-ARC domain mediates critical conformational changes through nucleotide exchange, while the LRR domain frequently provides autoinhibition that maintains the receptor in an inactive state prior to pathogen recognition [1] [3].

Table 1: Core Domain Architecture of Plant NLR Proteins

Domain	Key Features	Functional Role	Conserved Motifs
N-terminal	Variable domain determining subclass classification	Mediates downstream immune signaling and cell death	Varies by subclass (CC, TIR, or RPW8)
NB-ARC (NOD)	Nucleotide-binding switch domain	Molecular switch through ADP/ATP exchange; controls activation	P-loop, GLPL, MHD, Kinase 2 [4] [3]
LRR (SSFRs)	Leucine-rich repeat solenoid structure	Pathogen recognition; autoinhibition in resting state	LxxLxL repeats [5]

Classification of NLR Subfamilies

Based on their N-terminal domain structures, angiosperm NLRs are phylogenetically classified into three major subfamilies, with a fourth category for non-canonical architectures [4] [6].

CNL (CC-NBS-LRR) Subfamily

CNLs are characterized by an N-terminal coiled-coil (CC) domain and represent one of the most expansive NLR groups across angiosperms [6]. They function primarily as sensor NLRs that directly or indirectly detect pathogen effectors [7]. Upon activation, many CNLs form calcium-permeable channels that trigger immunity and cell necrosis [6]. The CNL subfamily has undergone dramatic expansions in certain plant lineages, including magnoliids, where they represent the dominant NLR type [6].

TNL (TIR-NBS-LRR) Subfamily

TNLs possess an N-terminal Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) domain and similarly function as sensor NLRs for pathogen detection [7]. The TIR domain exhibits NADase activity that generates signaling molecules to activate downstream immune components [1]. This subfamily shows remarkable distribution patterns across plant taxa, with complete absence observed in most monocots and some magnoliids, suggesting independent losses throughout angiosperm evolution [6]. Recent structural studies of TNLs, including Rpp1 and Roq1, have revealed tetrameric complexes in their activated states [5].

RNL (RPW8-NBS-LRR) Subfamily

RNLs feature an N-terminal Resistance to Powdery Mildew 8 (RPW8) domain and primarily function as helper NLRs that operate downstream of sensor CNLs and TNLs [7]. They typically do not directly detect pathogens but rather mediate signal transduction from activated sensors to immune execution [1]. RNLs are further divided into two conserved clades in angiosperms: NRG1 (N-required gene 1) and ADR1 (activated disease resistance gene 1) [3]. Conifers possess an exceptionally diverse and numerous RNL repertoire, including groups distinct from angiosperms [3].

Non-Canonical and Specialized NLRs

Beyond the three major classes, plants have evolved numerous non-canonical NLR variants with integrated domains that expand their functional capabilities [5]. These include:

• Truncated NLRs: Lacking complete domain structures (e.g., NL, TN, RN) but maintaining functionality [4]
• Integrated domain NLRs: Containing additional non-canonical domains that often mimic pathogen targets, acting as decoys [5]
• Singleton vs. paired/networked NLRs: Functioning independently or in interconnected receptor networks [1]

Table 2: Major NLR Subfamilies in Plants

Subfamily	N-terminal Domain	Primary Function	Distribution Notes
CNL	Coiled-coil (CC)	Sensor pathogen detection	Dominant in monocots; expanded in magnoliids [6]
TNL	Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)	Sensor pathogen detection	Absent in most monocots; independently lost in multiple lineages [6]
RNL	RPW8	Helper for signal transduction	Two angiosperm clades (NRG1, ADR1); highly diversified in conifers [3]

Evolutionary Dynamics and Genomic Distribution

NLR genes represent one of the most dynamic and rapidly evolving gene families in plants, driven by constant co-evolutionary arms races with pathogens [1] [2]. Several key evolutionary patterns have emerged from comparative genomic analyses:

Lineage-Specific Expansion and Contraction

NLR gene families exhibit remarkable variation in copy number across plant species, ranging from approximately 50 in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) to over 1,000 in apple (Malus domestica) and hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) [1]. This variation results from rapid gene birth-and-death processes, with NLR numbers differing up to 66-fold among closely related species [2]. Lineage-specific adaptations have significantly influenced NLR repertoires, with notable contractions associated with aquatic, parasitic, and carnivorous lifestyles [2]. Domesticated species often exhibit reduced NLR diversity compared to wild relatives, as observed in garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), which has only 27 NLR genes compared to 63 in its wild relative Asparagus setaceus [4].

Genomic Organization and Duplication Mechanisms

NLR genes are frequently organized in complex clusters across plant chromosomes, with tandem duplication serving as the primary mechanism for NLR expansion [4] [6]. This arrangement facilitates rapid evolution through unequal crossing-over and recombination, generating novel recognition specificities [8]. Whole genome duplication (WGD) events have also contributed to NLR repertoire expansion, with genes from ancient WGD events (~35 million years ago) retained across multiple lineages, including Fraxinus species [8].

Evolutionary Patterns Across Plant Lineages

Different plant taxa exhibit distinct evolutionary patterns of NLR genes:

• Brassicaceae: "First expansion and then contraction" pattern [6]
• Fabaceae and Rosaceae: Consistent expansion pattern [6]
• Poaceae: Contraction pattern [6]
• Magnoliids: "First expansion followed by slight contraction and further stronger expansion" [6]
• Apiaceae: Rapid and dynamic gene content variation with lineage-specific patterns [7]

Figure 1. Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Genes in Plants. NLR repertoires are shaped by duplication mechanisms and pathogen pressure, resulting in lineage-specific evolutionary patterns.

Experimental Protocols for NLR Identification and Characterization

Genome-Wide Identification of NLR Genes

Comprehensive identification of NLR genes employs a dual approach combining Hidden Markov Model (HMM) searches and BLAST-based analyses [4] [7]:

• HMM Search Protocol:

  • Use the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) as query
  • Perform searches using HMMER3 with E-value cutoff of 10⁻⁴ [7]
  • Extract candidate sequences containing NLR signatures
  • Validate through domain architecture analysis

• BLAST-based Identification:

  • Conduct local BLASTp analyses against reference NLR proteins
  • Apply stringent E-value cutoff of 1e-10 [4]
  • Use reference sequences from well-annotated species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa)

• Domain Validation:

  • Characterize protein domains using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search
  • Retain sequences containing NB-ARC domain (E-value ≤ 1e⁻⁵) as bona fide NLR genes
  • Final classification using Pfam and PRGdb 4.0 databases [4]

Classification and Phylogenetic Analysis

• Motif and Conserved Domain Analysis:

  • Predict conserved motifs within NBS domains using MEME suite
  • Set motif number to 10 while maintaining default parameters [4]
  • Visualize motif distributions using TBtools
  • Analyze gene structures through GSDS 2.0 (Gene Structure Display Server)

• Phylogenetic Reconstruction:

  • Perform multiple sequence alignment using Clustal Omega or ClustalW [4] [7]
  • Construct phylogenetic trees using maximum likelihood method (IQ-TREE)
  • Select best-fit model of nucleotide substitution by ModelFinder [7]
  • Estimate branch support using SH-aLRT and UFBoot2 with 1,000 bootstrap replicates [7]

• Subcellular Localization Prediction:

  • Determine using WoLF PSORT [4]
  • Generate subcellular localization heatmaps using Python scripts

Functional Characterization Approaches

• Expression Profiling:

  • Analyze cis-acting regulatory elements in promoter regions (2000 bp upstream of ATG)
  • Use PlantCARE database for cis-element identification [4]
  • Conduct expression studies under pathogen challenge

• High-Throughput Functional Validation:

  • Exploit expression signatures (functional NLRs often show high expression in uninfected plants) [9]
  • Employ high-throughput transformation systems (e.g., wheat transgenic array) [9]
  • Implement large-scale phenotyping for resistance screening [9]

• Orthologous Gene Analysis:

  • Cluster orthologous genes using OrthoFinder [4]
  • Identify conserved NLR gene pairs between related species
  • Determine evolutionary preservation during domestication processes

Figure 2. Experimental Workflow for NLR Identification and Characterization. The pipeline integrates genomic identification with functional validation through high-throughput approaches.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Databases for NLR Research

Resource	Type	Primary Function	Key Features
NLRscape	Database	NLR sequence landscape analysis	Collection of ~80,000 plant NLRs; advanced domain annotations; structural analysis tools [5]
ANNA (Angiosperm NLR Atlas)	Database	Comparative genomics across angiosperms	NLR genes from >300 angiosperm genomes; evolutionary associations [2]
RefPlantNLR	Database	Experimentally validated NLRs	Collection of ~500 experimentally validated NLRs [1]
PRGdb 4.0	Database	Plant resistance gene analysis	Curated resource for R genes and NLR classification [4]
HMMER	Software	Domain identification	Hidden Markov Model searches for NLR domains [7] [5]
MEME Suite	Software	Motif discovery	Identifies conserved motifs in NLR domains [4] [7]
OrthoFinder	Software	Orthogroup analysis	Clusters orthologous NLR genes across species [4]

The architectural principles governing CNL, TNL, and RNL subfamilies reflect complex evolutionary adaptations to diverse pathogen pressures across plant lineages. The conserved tripartite domain structure provides a flexible framework upon which functional specialization has emerged through gene duplication, domain shuffling, and integration of novel recognition components. Understanding these relationships enables researchers to develop more effective strategies for identifying functional resistance genes and engineering durable disease resistance in crop species. The experimental frameworks outlined in this guide provide comprehensive methodologies for NLR discovery and characterization, emphasizing the integration of evolutionary insights with functional validation through high-throughput approaches. As genomic resources continue to expand across diverse plant taxa, our understanding of NLR architecture and classification will further refine, enabling more precise manipulation of plant immune systems for agricultural improvement.

The evolution of plant genomes is characterized by remarkable dynamism, driven by mechanisms that generate genetic novelty and facilitate adaptation. Among these, gene duplication serves as a primary source of evolutionary innovation, supplying the raw material for the emergence of new genes and functions. Within the context of plant immunity, these mechanisms are critically important for the expansion and diversification of the Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) gene family, the central mediators of effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [10] [11]. This whitepaper examines the three principal drivers of NLR diversity—tandem duplication, segmental duplication, and retrotransposition—detailing their molecular mechanisms, quantitative contributions, and the experimental frameworks used to investigate them. A comprehensive understanding of these processes is indispensable for deciphering the evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens and for leveraging this knowledge in crop improvement.

The NLR Gene Family: Central Players in Plant Immunity

NLR proteins are sophisticated intracellular immune receptors that confer specific recognition of pathogen effector proteins, leading to a robust defense response often accompanied by localized programmed cell death, known as the hypersensitive response (HR) [10] [12]. The canonical structure of an NLR includes a central nucleotide-binding (NB-ARC) domain, which functions as a molecular switch, and a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain, responsible for effector recognition and specificity. The N-terminal domain, which can be a coiled-coil (CC), Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR), or RPW8 domain, dictates downstream signaling pathways [11] [4] [12].

The NLR family is one of the most variable and expansive gene families in plants. For instance, the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana possesses approximately 150 NLRs, while crops like rice (Oryza sativa) and grape (Vitis vinifera) can harbor over 400 members [10]. This extensive diversity is a direct consequence of an ongoing evolutionary arms race with fast-evolving pathogen effectors, necessitating a rapid and continuous generation of new recognition specificities within the plant's immune repertoire [11].

Mechanisms of Gene Duplication

The genomic landscape of plants is shaped by diverse duplication mechanisms, each contributing differently to gene family expansion and genome evolution. The table below summarizes the core attributes of the three major duplication mechanisms in the context of NLR gene evolution.

Table 1: Key Mechanisms Driving NLR Gene Family Expansion

Mechanism	Molecular Process	Genomic Signature	Impact on NLR Genes	Representative Example
Tandem Duplication	Unequal crossing over or replication slippage creates closely linked gene copies [13].	Clusters of paralogous genes in close proximity on a single chromosome [11] [4].	Primary driver of rapid, local expansion and variation for specific pathogen recognition [11].	53 of 288 NLRs in pepper (Capsicum annuum) formed by tandem duplication, with dense clusters on Chr08 and Chr09 [11].
Segmental Duplication	Duplication of large genomic blocks (≥1 kbp) via polyploidy or non-allelic homologous recombination [14].	Large, duplicated chromosomal segments with high sequence identity (>90%) [13] [14].	Provides a reservoir of genetic material for long-term evolution; initial duplicate retention often influenced by dosage balance [15] [13].	In Arabidopsis thaliana, segmental duplications have contributed significantly to the expansion of many large gene families [13].
Retrotransposition	mRNA is reverse-transcribed and inserted as a cDNA copy back into the genome [15].	Intron-less gene copies lacking regulatory sequences, often on different chromosomes [15].	Less common for NLRs due to complex, multi-domain structure; can create new regulatory contexts for existing genes [15].	Prevalent in plant genomes, but specific examples for NLRs are less documented, indicating it is a minor contributor [15].

The following diagram illustrates the logical relationships between these duplication mechanisms, their molecular processes, and their outcomes in shaping NLR diversity.

Quantitative Contributions to NLR Diversity

Comparative genomic analyses across plant species reveal the distinct and significant contributions of different duplication mechanisms to the NLR family's expansion.

Table 2: Quantitative Impact of Duplication Mechanisms on NLR Families in Various Plant Species

Plant Species	Total NLRs Identified	Tandem Duplication Contribution	Segmental Duplication Contribution	Reference
Pepper (Capsicum annuum)	288	53 genes (18.4%) primarily on Chr08/09 [11].	Not explicitly quantified, but reported as a key mechanism [11].	[11]
Asparagus (A. officinalis)	27	Clustering patterns observed, indicating tandem activity [4].	Contraction from wild relatives suggests segmental loss [4].	[4]
Asparagus (A. setaceus)	63	Clustering patterns observed [4].	Served as source for NLRs in domesticated asparagus [4].	[4]
Arabidopsis thaliana	~150	Major driver for specific families; distribution follows a power-law [13].	Contributed to ~65% of duplicate genes genome-wide [15] [13].	[15] [13]

The quantitative data underscores that tandem duplication is a dominant force in the rapid, lineage-specific expansion of NLR genes, allowing plants to locally amplify genetic material for variation. In contrast, segmental duplications and whole-genome duplications (WGDs) provide a foundational reservoir of genetic diversity. It is notable that a high rate of duplicate retention follows WGDs in plants; on average, 65% of annotated genes in plant genomes have a duplicate copy, many of which were derived from ancient WGDs [15].

Experimental Protocols for Identifying and Characterizing Duplication Events

Deciphering the evolutionary history of NLR genes requires an integrated methodological approach. Below are detailed protocols for key analyses.

Genome-Wide Identification of NLR Genes

Objective: To compile a comprehensive catalog of NLR genes from a sequenced genome. Workflow:

• HMMER Search: Use Hidden Markov Model (HMM) searches (e.g., with HMMER v3.3.2) against the entire plant proteome using the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) as a query. A typical E-value cutoff is 1e-5 [11] [4].
• BLASTp Retrieval: Perform a complementary BLASTp search using known NLR protein sequences (e.g., from Arabidopsis thaliana) as a query against the target proteome. A stringent E-value cutoff (e.g., 1e-10) is recommended [4].
• Domain Validation: Subject candidate sequences to domain architecture analysis using tools like NCBI's Conserved Domain Database (CDD) and InterProScan to confirm the presence of NB-ARC and identify N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains [11] [4].
• Manual Curation: Manually inspect and remove redundant sequences or fragments lacking complete domain structures to generate a high-confidence set of canonical NLR genes [11].

Analyzing Tandem and Segmental Duplications

Objective: To distinguish between NLRs expanded via tandem versus segmental duplication. Workflow:

• Tandem Duplication Identification:
  • Extract the genomic coordinates of all identified NLR genes.
  • Define tandem duplicates as two or more NLR genes located within a specified physical distance (e.g., separated by ≤ 8 intervening genes) on the same chromosome [4].
  • Use tools like BEDTools to identify these clusters and visualize them on chromosomes [4].
• Segmental Duplication and Synteny Analysis:
  • Use software such as MCScanX (integrated into TBtools) to perform intra- and inter-genomic synteny analysis [11].
  • Identify collinear blocks containing NLR genes, which are indicative of segmental duplication events.
  • Generate synteny plots (e.g., using Advanced Circos in TBtools) to visualize the genomic context of duplicated NLRs [11].

Evolutionary and Phylogenetic Analysis

Objective: To reconstruct evolutionary relationships among NLRs and infer duplication timelines. Workflow:

• Sequence Alignment: Perform multiple sequence alignment of NB-ARC domain sequences or full-length protein sequences from the target species and outgroups (e.g., A. thaliana, S. lycopersicum) using tools like Muscle v5 or Clustal Omega [11] [4].
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Construct a Maximum Likelihood (ML) phylogenetic tree using programs such as IQ-TREE or MEGA. Employ a model (e.g., JTT matrix-based) selected by model finders and validate node support with 1000 bootstrap replicates [11] [4].
• Tree Annotation: Annotate the resulting phylogeny with information on duplication types (tandem, segmental), gene structures, and functional domains to interpret evolutionary patterns [13].

The following diagram maps this multi-stage experimental workflow.

Successful research in NLR genomics and evolution relies on a suite of bioinformatic tools and databases. The following table lists key resources.

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for NLR and Duplication Analysis

Tool/Resource	Type	Primary Function in Analysis	Reference/Access
HMMER	Software Suite	Identifying genes with conserved protein domains (e.g., NB-ARC) in a proteome.	https://hmmer.org/ [11]
BLAST+	Software Suite	Performing local homology searches using reference NLR sequences.	https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ [4]
InterProScan / NCBI CDD	Web/Standalone Tool	Validating and annotating protein domain architecture.	https://www.ebi.ac.uk/interpro/ [11] [4]
MCScanX	Software	Conducting synteny and segmental duplication analysis between genomes.	Integrated into TBtools [11]
TBtools	Software Suite	Integrative toolkit for genomic analysis, visualization (chromosome mapping, Circos plots), and data integration.	[Chen et al., 2020] [11] [4]
IQ-TREE / MEGA	Software	Constructing robust phylogenetic trees with model selection and bootstrap testing.	http://www.iqtree.org/; https://www.megasoftware.net/ [11] [4]
PlantCARE	Web Tool	Predicting cis-regulatory elements in promoter sequences of NLR genes.	https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/ [11] [4]
STRING	Web Tool	Predicting protein-protein interaction networks for candidate NLRs.	https://string-db.org/ [11]

The intricate diversity of the plant NLR gene family is a product of several evolutionary forces, with tandem duplication, segmental duplication, and retrotransposition acting as key drivers. Tandem duplication stands out for its role in creating rapid, localized expansions that enable plants to adapt to immediate pathogen threats. Segmental duplications and polyploidy events provide a broader genomic substrate for long-term evolution and functional innovation. While retrotransposition appears to be a minor player for NLRs, it nonetheless contributes to regulatory diversity.

The experimental frameworks combining comparative genomics, phylogenetics, and synteny analysis are powerful for dissecting these contributions. As pangenomic studies and long-read sequencing technologies advance, our understanding of NLR evolution will become more nuanced, revealing the complex interplay of these duplication mechanisms in shaping a robust and adaptable plant immune system. This knowledge is fundamental for future efforts in engineering durable disease resistance in crops.

In plant genomes, the non-random distribution of genes is a critical factor in evolution and adaptation. Telomeric regions, the physical ends of chromosomes, are now recognized as dynamic genomic hotspots, particularly for genes involved in environmental interaction and defense [16] [17]. This review explores the significance of these regions, framed within the context of Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) gene family evolution. NLRs, which are central components of the plant immune system, consistently exhibit a striking propensity to cluster in these subtelomeric areas [11]. This spatial organization is not merely coincidental but is a strategic genomic architecture that facilitates rapid evolution and diversification, enabling plants to keep pace with rapidly evolving pathogens [18]. The following sections will dissect the evidence for this clustering, the evolutionary mechanisms it enables, its functional consequences for plant immunity, and the methodologies empowering its study.

The NLR Gene Family: Architects of Plant Immunity

Plants rely on a sophisticated innate immune system, of which NLR proteins are a cornerstone. They function as intracellular immune receptors that directly or indirectly recognize pathogen effectors, triggering a robust defense response known as Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI), often accompanied by programmed cell death to restrict pathogen spread [19] [11]. The canonical structure of an NLR protein includes a central nucleotide-binding adaptor shared by APAF-1, R proteins, and CED-4 (NB-ARC) domain, a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain, and a variable N-terminal domain. Based on this N-terminal domain, NLRs are classified into:

• TNLs: Containing a Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor (TIR) domain.
• CNLs: Containing a Coiled-Coil (CC) domain.
• RNLs: Containing an RPW8 domain (often acting as "helper" NLRs) [7] [19].

Table 1: NLR Gene Counts Across Various Plant Species

Species	Family	Number of NLR Genes	Key Genomic Feature
Capsicum annuum (Pepper)	Solanaceae	288-755 [19] [11]	Significant clustering near telomeres
Coriandrum sativum (Coriander)	Apiaceae	183 [7]	Dynamic gene content variation
Apium graveolens (Celery)	Apiaceae	153 [7]	Dynamic gene content variation
Daucus carota (Carrot)	Apiaceae	149 [7]	Dynamic gene content variation
Solanum tuberosum (Potato)	Solanaceae	443 [19]	Species-specific subgroup expansion
Solanum lycopersicum (Tomato)	Solanaceae	267 [19]	Species-specific subgroup expansion
Asparagus setaceus (Wild)	Asparagaceae	63 [4]	NLR contraction during domestication
Asparagus kiusianus (Wild)	Asparagaceae	47 [4]	NLR contraction during domestication
Asparagus officinalis (Domesticated)	Asparagaceae	27 [4]	NLR contraction during domestication
Angelica sinensis	Apiaceae	95 [7]	Highest level of gene-loss events

Telomeric Regions as Genomic Hotspots

Defining the Telomeric Environment

Telomeres are specialized nucleoprotein structures that cap the ends of linear chromosomes, protecting them from degradation and fusion. In mammals and plants, telomeric DNA typically consists of tandem repeats of a TTAGGG sequence [17]. These regions are not inert caps; they are organized into a unique, repressive chromatin environment known as heterochromatin, characterized by specific histone modifications and DNA methylation [16] [17].

This heterochromatic environment has a profound effect on gene regulation and genome dynamics. Studies in yeast have demonstrated that telomeres create foci at the nuclear periphery that sequester repressive complexes, leading to the silencing of adjacent genes, a phenomenon known as the Telomeric Position Effect (TPE) [16]. This repressive environment is a double-edged sword: while it can silence genes, it also appears to permit a level of genomic instability and recombinogenic activity that is suppressed in gene-rich, stable euchromatic regions.

NLR Clustering in Subtelomeric Regions

Compelling evidence from genome-wide analyses across multiple plant families reveals that NLR genes are frequently organized in clusters within these dynamic subtelomeric regions. A seminal study in pepper (Capsicum annuum) provided a clear quantitative demonstration of this phenomenon, showing that Chromosome 09 alone harbors 63 NLR genes, the highest density in the genome [11]. This clustering is a recurring theme in plant genomics, observed in diverse species from Solanaceae to Apiaceae [7] [19].

The following diagram illustrates the conceptual relationship between the telomeric environment and NLR gene evolution.

Evolutionary Mechanisms Driven by Telomeric Localization

The placement of NLR genes in telomeric proximity is a key driver of their evolution, primarily by facilitating gene duplication and recombination.

Tandem Duplication as a Primary Driver

Tandem duplication is a major mechanism for NLR family expansion. This process involves the duplication of a gene locus in situ, leading to two or more closely related genes located adjacent to each other on the chromosome. Research in pepper has shown that 18.4% (53 out of 288) of its NLR genes are products of tandem duplication, with Chr08 and Chr09 being primary hotspots for such events [11]. This localized duplication creates the dense clusters observed in genomic studies.

Facilitation of Ectopic Recombination

The repetitive nature of both telomeric sequences and the LRR domains within NLR genes themselves makes these regions prone to ectopic recombination—recombination between similar sequences that are not at analogous locations on homologous chromosomes. This process can generate novel gene combinations, chimeric genes, and significant structural variation. The "subtelomeric zones of high recombination" create a genomic environment that is permissive of such events, accelerating the generation of new NLR alleles and haplotypes [18] [20]. This is a powerful means for plants to generate genetic diversity in their immune receptors without compromising the integrity of essential housekeeping genes located in more stable genomic regions.

Functional Consequences and Biological Significance

Impact on Disease Resistance and Susceptibility

The dynamic evolution of NLR clusters in telomeric regions has direct and observable consequences for plant health. A powerful example is found in the Asparagus genus. Comparative genomic analysis revealed a dramatic contraction of the NLR gene repertoire during the domestication of garden asparagus (A. officinalis), which has only 27 NLRs, compared to 63 and 47 in its wild relatives (A. setaceus and A. kiusianus, respectively) [4]. This genetic narrowing is correlated with increased disease susceptibility in the domesticated crop, demonstrating how the loss of telomeric-associated NLR diversity can compromise the immune system.

The Trade-off of Genomic Instability

Harboring a critical gene family in a volatile genomic region represents an evolutionary trade-off. The high recombination rate and instability of telomeric regions provide the raw material for rapid adaptation—a clear advantage in the endless arms race against pathogens. However, this comes with risks. The same instability can lead to the loss of beneficial resistance genes or the generation of deleterious mutations. Furthermore, as shown in yeast, disrupting telomere anchoring can lead to the dispersal of repressive complexes, causing promiscuous silencing of non-telomeric genes and disrupting overall genomic regulation [16]. Plants have evidently evolved to manage this risk, balancing the need for immune innovation with genomic stability.

Experimental Protocols and Research Tools

The study of NLR genes and telomeric biology relies on a suite of bioinformatic and molecular biology techniques.

Genome-Wide Identification of NLR Genes

The standard workflow for identifying NLR genes at a genome-wide scale involves a multi-step computational pipeline [7] [4] [11]:

• HMMER Search: Perform a Hidden Markov Model (HMM) search of the entire proteome against the conserved NB-ARC domain profile (Pfam: PF00931). A typical E-value cutoff is 1e-4 to 1e-5.
• BLAST Enhancement: Conduct a BLASTp search using known NLR protein sequences from related species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) as queries against the target proteome (E-value cutoff ~1e-10) to identify candidates that may have been missed by HMM.
• Domain Validation: Subject all candidate sequences to domain analysis using tools like InterProScan, NCBI's CD-Search, or Pfam to confirm the presence of the NB-ARC domain and classify genes based on their N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains.
• Manual Curation: Manually remove redundant sequences and validate the domain architecture of final candidates.

Analysis of Chromosomal Distribution and Clustering

To determine the genomic distribution of identified NLR genes [7] [4]:

• Extract genomic positions from GFF3 annotation files.
• Define gene clusters based on physical distance. A common criterion is to consider NLR genes separated by less than 250 kilobases as part of a cluster.
• Use software like TBtools for sliding-window analysis and chromosomal mapping visualization.
• Identify tandem duplicates as adjacent NLR genes separated by ≤ 8 non-NLR genes.

Phylogenetic and Evolutionary Analysis

To trace the evolutionary history of NLR genes [7] [19]:

• Extract the amino acid sequences of the NBS domains from all identified NLR genes.
• Perform a multiple sequence alignment using tools like ClustalW or Clustal Omega.
• Construct a phylogenetic tree using the Maximum Likelihood method with software such as IQ-TREE or MEGA. The best-fit model of substitution should be selected by ModelFinder.
• Estimate branch support with 1000 bootstrap replicates (SH-aLRT or UFBoot2).
• Use software like Notung or OrthoFinder to reconcile the gene tree with the species tree, inferring gene duplication and loss events.

The following diagram summarizes this integrated workflow.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Key Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 2: Essential Tools and Reagents for NLR and Telomere Research

Tool/Reagent	Function/Description	Application in Research
HMMER Suite	Software for sequence analysis using profile hidden Markov models.	Identifying NLR genes by searching for the conserved NB-ARC domain (PF00931) [7] [11].
InterProScan/Pfam	Databases and tools for protein domain and family classification.	Validating the domain architecture (TIR, CC, NBS, LRR) of candidate NLR genes [4] [11].
TBtools	A graphical software toolkit for biological data integration and analysis.	Visualizing chromosomal distribution, performing synteny analysis, and calculating physicochemical parameters of proteins [4] [11].
IQ-TREE/MEGA	Software for phylogenetic analysis by maximum likelihood.	Reconstructing evolutionary relationships among NLR genes from different species [7] [4].
PlantCARE	Database of plant cis-acting regulatory elements.	Predicting defense and hormone-related cis-elements in the promoter regions of NLR genes [4] [11].
MCScanX	Software package for analyzing gene collinearity and duplication.	Inferring segmental and tandem duplication events that drive NLR family expansion [7] [11].
STRING Database	Database of known and predicted protein-protein interactions.	Predicting functional interactions between NLR proteins and other immune components [11].
8-Methylguanosine	8-Methylguanosine, CAS:36799-17-4, MF:C11H15N5O5, MW:297.27 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
Sulindac Sulfone-d6	Sulindac Sulfone-d6, MF:C20H17FO4S, MW:378.4 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

The clustering of NLR genes in telomeric regions is a widespread and strategically important genomic architecture in plants. This location leverages the inherent properties of telomeres—such as repressive chromatin, permissible instability, and high recombination rates—to create an evolutionary innovation engine for the immune system. Through mechanisms like tandem duplication and ectopic recombination, this genomic context enables the rapid diversification necessary for plants to adapt to new pathogen threats. Understanding this relationship is not merely an academic exercise; it provides a foundational framework for future crop improvement. By leveraging pangenomic approaches and advanced genome editing technologies, researchers can now identify and harness the full spectrum of NLR diversity from wild relatives, ultimately engineering more durable and sustainable disease resistance in agricultural crops.

The evolution of plant immune systems is characterized by a continuous molecular arms race against rapidly evolving pathogens. Central to this process are intracellular immune receptors encoded by Nucleotide-binding, Leucine-Rich Repeat (NLR) genes, which mediate effector-triggered immunity by recognizing specific pathogen-derived molecules [21]. NLR genes constitute one of the most dynamic and polymorphic gene families in plant genomes, exhibiting remarkable structural diversity and evolutionary patterns across plant lineages [11].

This technical review examines the lineage-specific expansion and contraction of NLR gene families within three economically and ecologically significant plant families: Solanaceae, Oleaceae, and Apiaceae. Through comparative genomic analyses, we elucidate how different evolutionary pressures, including whole genome duplication events, tandem duplication, and geographical adaptation, have shaped the NLR repertoires ("NLRomes") of these lineages. Understanding these patterns provides crucial insights for harnessing innate immunity resources in crop breeding programs and reveals fundamental aspects of plant-pathogen co-evolution.

NLR Gene Family Evolution: Mechanisms and Significance

NLR proteins function as sophisticated molecular switches in plant immunity, typically characterized by a conserved modular architecture: an N-terminal signaling domain (TIR, CC, or RPW8), a central nucleotide-binding adaptor (NB-ARC), and C-terminal leucine-rich repeats (LRRs) responsible for effector recognition [11] [22]. The N-terminal domain forms the basis for classifying NLRs into major subfamilies: TNLs (TIR-NLRs), CNLs (CC-NLRs), and RNLs (RPW8-NLRs) [4].

The evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes are driven primarily by three mechanisms: tandem duplication, segmental duplication, and retrotransposition [11]. This genetic flexibility enables plants to rapidly generate novel recognition specificities in response to evolving pathogen effectors. The "birth-and-death" evolution model characterizes NLR gene families, where new genes are created through duplication, while others are lost through pseudogenization or deletion [21]. This dynamic process results in substantial variation in NLR numbers across species - ranging from approximately 150 in Arabidopsis thaliana to over 2,000 in wheat - reflecting differing pathogen pressures and evolutionary histories [4] [21].

Comparative Genomic Analysis of NLRomes Across Plant Families

Solanaceae: Diversification Through Duplication

The Solanaceae family represents a compelling case study of NLR evolution, exhibiting notable expansion driven by both small-scale and large-scale duplication events. Comprehensive genomic analyses reveal significant variation in NLR numbers among major Solanaceae crops, with pepper (Capsicum annuum) harboring 755 NLR genes, potato (Solanum tuberosum) 443 genes, and tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) 267 genes [21].

Table 1: NLR Gene Distribution in Solanaceae Species

Species	Total NLR Genes	Tandem Duplications	Key Expansion Mechanisms	Genomic Distribution
Pepper (Capsicum annuum)	755	53 genes (18.4%)	Tandem duplication, segmental duplication	Clustered near telomeric regions, highest density on Chr09 (63 NLRs)
Potato (Solanum tuberosum)	443	Not specified	Subgroup-specific expansion	Physical clustering in specific subgroups
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)	267	Not specified	Species-specific duplication events	Cluster formation after speciation

Recent research on pepper NLRs identified 288 high-confidence canonical NLR genes in the 'Zhangshugang' genome, with chromosomal distribution analysis revealing significant clustering, particularly near telomeric regions [11] [22]. Chr09 harbored the highest density with 63 NLRs, while Chr08 also showed substantial enrichment. Evolutionary analysis demonstrated that tandem duplication serves as the primary driver of NLR family expansion in pepper, accounting for 18.4% of NLR genes (53/288), predominantly on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11].

The Solanaceae-specific whole-genome triplication (WGT) event has significantly contributed to NLR repertoire expansion, with subsequent diploidization and selective gene retention shaping the current genomic landscape [23]. Comparative phylogenetic analysis of Solanaceae NLRs reveals that the majority fall into 14 distinct subgroups, including one TNL subgroup and 13 non-TNL subgroups, with specific subgroups exhibiting expansion in each genome [21].

Oleaceae: Contrasted Evolutionary Strategies

The Oleaceae family presents a fascinating contrast in NLR evolution strategies between its constituent genera. High-throughput comparative genomics across 23 Fraxinus (ash tree) species and other Oleaceae members reveals a predominant pattern of gene conservation in Fraxinus, while the genus Olea (olives) has undergone extensive gene expansion [24] [25].

Table 2: Contrasted NLR Evolution in Oleaceae Genera

Genus	Evolutionary Pattern	Key Mechanisms	Driving Factors	Functional Implications
Fraxinus (ash trees)	Gene conservation	Retention of genes from ancient WGD (~35 Mya), geographical adaptation	Specialized immune responses, energy efficiency	Maintains specialized immune responses through conserved genes
Olea (olives)	Extensive gene expansion	Recent duplications, birth of novel NLR gene families	Pathogen recognition diversity	Enhanced ability to recognize diverse pathogens through recent expansions

Notably, genes acquired from an ancient whole genome duplication event approximately 35 million years ago have been retained across Fraxinus lineages, suggesting their functional importance [24]. Geographical adaptation has played a significant role in shaping NLR evolution, particularly in Old World ash tree species, which exhibit dynamic patterns of gene expansion and contraction within the last 50 million years [24].

In terms of NLR distribution, all Oleaceae species show enhanced pseudogenization of TIR-NLRs and expansion in CCG10-NLR subclasses [24]. Despite these structural patterns, comparative RNA-seq expression analysis in olive indicates that partial NLR genes, even with incomplete structure, exhibit significant expression and may play important roles in plant immune responses [24] [25].

Apiaceae: Dynamic Gene Loss and Gain

Comparative genomic analysis across four Apiaceae species (Angelica sinensis, Coriandrum sativum, Apium graveolens, and Daucus carota) reveals dynamic patterns of NLR gene loss and gain during speciation [26]. The NLR gene counts vary considerably among these species: Angelica sinensis (95 NLRs), Coriandrum sativum (183 NLRs), Apium graveolens (153 NLRs), and Daucus carota (149 NLRs) [26].

Phylogenetic analysis demonstrates that NLR genes in these four species were derived from 183 ancestral NLR lineages and experienced different levels of gene loss and gain events [26]. The evolutionary history follows distinct trajectories: Daucus carota exhibited a contraction pattern of ancestral NLR lineages, while A. sinensis, C. sativum, and A. graveolens showed a different pattern of contraction after an initial expansion of NLR genes [26].

This rapid and dynamic gene content variation has characterized the evolutionary history of NLR genes in Apiaceae species, potentially reflecting adaptation to diverse ecological niches and pathogen pressures [26]. The Apioideae subfamily, which contains most Apiaceae species, diverged approximately 56.64-65.78 million years ago, with subsequent diversification influenced by climatic and geological changes [27].

Experimental Methodologies for NLRome Analysis

Genome-Wide Identification and Classification

The standard pipeline for NLR gene identification combines sequence similarity-based and domain architecture-based approaches:

• Initial Candidate Identification: Perform Hidden Markov Model (HMM) searches against the conserved NB-ARC domain (PF00931) using HMMER software with a cutoff E-value of 1×10⁻⁵ [4] [11]. Concurrently, conduct BLASTp searches against reference NLR protein sequences from model plants (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) with a stringent E-value cutoff of 1×10⁻¹⁰ [4].

• Domain Validation and Classification: Validate candidate sequences using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search to confirm the presence of NB-ARC domains (E-value ≤ 1×10⁻⁵) [4] [11]. Classify NLRs into subfamilies (TNL, CNL, RNL) by querying Pfam and PRGdb 4.0 databases for N-terminal domains (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal LRR regions [4].

• Manual Curation: Remove redundant sequences and validate complete domain architecture, filtering out fragments lacking start codons or conserved NB domains [21].

Evolutionary and Expression Analysis

Evolutionary Analysis:

• Phylogenetic Reconstruction: Perform multiple sequence alignment of NB-ARC domains or full-length sequences using Clustal Omega or Muscle, followed by maximum likelihood tree construction with IQ-TREE or MEGA with 1000 bootstrap replicates [4] [11].
• Gene Duplication Analysis: Identify tandem and segmental duplications using MCScanX implemented in TBtools, with synteny visualization via Advanced Circos [11].
• Cis-Regulatory Element Analysis: Extract promoter regions (2000 bp upstream of translation start site) and identify defense-related elements using PlantCARE database [4] [11].

Expression Profiling:

• Transcriptome Analysis: Map RNA-seq reads to reference genomes using Hisat2, calculate FPKM values, and identify differentially expressed NLR genes with DESeq2 (|logâ‚‚FC| ≥ 1, FDR < 0.05) [11].
• Protein-Protein Interaction Networks: Predict interactions using STRING database with confidence score >0.4, identifying potential hub genes [11].

Table 3: Key Research Reagents and Resources for NLR Studies

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function/Application	Reference/Availability
Genomic Databases	Plant GARDEN, Dryad Digital Repository, Sol Genomics Network	Source of genome assemblies and annotations	[4]
NLR Identification Tools	NLRtracker, HMMER (PF00931), NCBI CD-Search	Domain-based NLR mining and validation	[24] [11]
Analysis Suites	TBtools, OrthoFinder, MEME Suite	Integrated analysis of duplication, phylogeny, and motifs	[4] [11]
Promoter Analysis	PlantCARE	Identification of cis-regulatory elements in promoter regions	[4] [11]
Expression Databases	NCBI SRA, RNA-seq datasets	Transcriptomic data for expression profiling	[24] [11]
Protein Analysis	STRING, SWISS-MODEL	Protein-protein interaction prediction and structure modeling	[11]

The comparative analysis of NLR gene family evolution across Solanaceae, Oleaceae, and Apiaceae reveals both shared and lineage-specific evolutionary trajectories. The Solanaceae family demonstrates expansion-driven evolution, particularly in pepper, where tandem duplications have dramatically increased NLR repertoire. In contrast, the Oleaceae family exhibits genus-specific strategies, with Fraxinus emphasizing gene conservation and Olea undergoing substantial expansion. The Apiaceae family shows dynamic patterns of gene loss and gain, reflecting rapid evolutionary adaptation.

These divergent evolutionary patterns reflect complex interactions between whole genome duplication events, small-scale duplications, geographical adaptation, and pathogen pressure. The findings underscore the importance of lineage-specific studies for understanding plant immunity evolution and provide valuable resources for targeted breeding of disease-resistant crops through marker-assisted selection and genetic engineering approaches.

Future research directions should include more comprehensive sampling across these plant families, functional validation of candidate NLR genes through gene editing, and integration of pan-genome analyses to capture the full spectrum of NLR diversity within species. Such approaches will further illuminate the complex evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens.

The Impact of Whole Genome Duplication Events on NLR Family Long-Term Evolution

Whole Genome Duplication (WGD) events are major evolutionary catalysts that provide the raw genetic material for organismal diversification and adaptation. In plants, these events have played a particularly significant role in shaping the evolution of complex gene families, including the Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) genes that form the core of the plant intracellular immune system [28]. NLR genes encode immune receptors that facilitate the identification and binding of effector compounds produced by pathogens as part of effector-triggered immunity (ETI), leading to robust defense responses [28]. Understanding how WGD events influence the long-term evolutionary trajectory of NLR genes is crucial for elucidating the mechanisms of plant immunity and has significant implications for crop improvement strategies. This review synthesizes current research on the complex relationship between WGD events and NLR gene family evolution across multiple plant families, highlighting patterns of expansion, contraction, and diversification that have shaped plant immunity over millions of years.

NLR Gene Family: Structure, Function, and Classification

NLR genes constitute one of the largest and most diverse gene families in plant genomes, encoding intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen-derived effector molecules and initiate defense signaling cascades [29]. These proteins typically contain three characteristic domains: an N-terminal signaling domain, a central Nucleotide-Binding (NB-ARC) domain, and C-terminal Leucine-Rich Repeats (LRRs) [30]. The N-terminal domain, which can be either a Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR) or coiled-coil (CC) structure, is responsible for initiating immune signaling. The central NB-ARC domain functions as a molecular switch regulated by nucleotide binding and hydrolysis, while the LRR domain is involved in pathogen recognition and protein-protein interactions [30].

Based on their N-terminal domains, NLR genes are classified into several subfamilies: TNLs (containing TIR domains), CNLs (containing CC domains), and RNLs (featuring RPW8 domains) [30]. Recent studies have further identified specialized subclasses, including helper genes (CCR-NLR) and CCG10-NLR, which represent phylogenetically distinct groups with potentially specialized immune functions [28]. The RNL subfamily typically acts as "helper" NLRs involved in the downstream signaling of CNL and TNL proteins [29]. This classification system provides a framework for understanding the functional diversification and evolutionary relationships within the NLR gene family.

Methodological Framework for Studying NLR Evolution

Genomic Identification and Annotation of NLR Genes

The accurate identification and characterization of NLR genes across plant genomes require integrated bioinformatics approaches. Standard methodologies include:

• Hidden Markov Model (HMM) Searches: Using the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) as query to identify potential NLR genes with an E-value cutoff of 10⁻⁴ [30] [29]
• BLASTp Analyses: Conducting local BLASTp searches against reference NLR protein sequences with stringent E-value thresholds (1e-10) to ensure comprehensive identification [30]
• Domain Architecture Validation: Employing InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search to verify the presence of characteristic NLR domains (E-value ≤ 1e-5) [30]
• Manual Curation: Performing phylogenetic analysis and manual inspection to resolve ambiguous annotations, particularly for specialized subclasses like CCR-NLR [31]

Evolutionary Analysis and Phylogenetic Reconstruction

Reconstructing the evolutionary history of NLR genes involves several computational approaches:

• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Using tools like Clustal Omega or ClustalW with default parameters [30]
• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Implementing maximum likelihood methods with tools such as IQ-TREE, using the best-fit model of nucleotide substitution selected by ModelFinder [29]
• Gene Duplication and Loss Analysis: Employing software like Notung to determine gene duplication and loss events by comparing NLR gene trees with species trees [29]
• Synteny and Collinearity Analysis: Using MCScanX packages and Tbtools to identify conserved NLR gene clusters and syntenic relationships across species [30] [29]

Table 1: Key Bioinformatics Tools for NLR Evolutionary Analysis

Tool Name	Application	Key Parameters	Reference
NLRtracker	NLR identification and annotation	Interproscan, specified motif patterns	[31]
OrthoFinder	Orthologous gene clustering	BLAST bit scores normalized by gene length	[30]
MEME Suite	Conserved motif prediction	Motif number set to 10	[30]
MCScanX	Gene duplication type analysis	Pair-wise all-against-all BLAST	[29]

Experimental Workflow for Comparative Genomic Analysis

The following diagram illustrates a standardized workflow for comparative genomic analysis of NLR genes:

Evolutionary Patterns of NLR Genes Following WGD Events

Fabaceae Family: Divergent Evolutionary Trajectories

The Fabaceae family provides compelling evidence of how WGD events can lead to divergent evolutionary paths in NLR genes. Ancestors of the Fabaceae family underwent a WGD approximately 58.5 million years ago (Mya), which significantly influenced subsequent NLR evolution [28]. Research on the Vicioid clade (containing important legume crops such as chickpea, clover, alfalfa, and pea) revealed distinct patterns of NLRome evolution:

• Contraction Pattern: Members of the Cicereae and Fabeae tribes exhibited an overall contraction of their NLRomes, consistent with the phenomenon of diploidization that often follows WGD events [28]
• Expansion Pattern: In contrast, the Trifolieae tribe showed large-scale expansion of their NLRomes regardless of genome size, primarily driven by accelerated gene duplications occurring 1-6 million years ago [28]
• Mechanisms of Diversification: This expansion in Trifolieae was facilitated by higher substitution rates per site per year, with gene conversion and asymmetric recombination playing active roles in subgroup diversification [28]

Genus Glycine: Influence of Life History Strategy

The genus Glycine demonstrates how life history strategies interact with WGD to shape NLR evolution. Glycine species experienced a genus-specific WGD event approximately 10 million years ago, followed by distinct evolutionary paths in annual and perennial lineages [31]:

• Annual Species Expansion: Annual species such as Glycine max (soybean) and Glycine soja exhibit expanded NLRomes compared to perennial species, with recent accelerated gene duplication events occurring between 0.1 and 0.5 million years ago [31]
• Perennial Contraction and Diversification: Perennial species initially experienced significant NLRome contraction during the diploidization phase following WGD but subsequently developed a unique and highly diversified NLR repertoire with limited interspecies synteny [31]
• Subgenome Bias: In the young allopolyploid G. dolichocarpa (4n=80), unbalanced expansion of the NLRome occurred in the Dt subgenome compared to the At subgenome, demonstrating the complex dynamics of NLR evolution in polyploids [31]

Table 2: NLR Gene Evolution Patterns Following WGD Events Across Plant Families

Plant Family	WGD Time	Evolutionary Pattern	Key Mechanisms	Representative Species
Fabaceae	~58.5 Mya	Tribe-dependent: Contraction in Cicereae/Fabeae; Expansion in Trifolieae	Diploidization; Accelerated gene duplication; Gene conversion	Chickpea, Clover, Alfalfa, Pea [28]
Glycine Genus	~10 Mya	Life strategy-dependent: Expansion in annuals; Contraction then diversification in perennials	Lineage-specific duplications; Birth of novel genes; Recombination	G. max, G. soja, G. latifolia [31]
Oleaceae	~35 Mya	Genus-dependent: Conservation in Fraxinus; Expansion in Olea	Retention of ancient WGD genes; Recent duplications; Novel gene birth	Olive, Ash trees [8]
Apiaceae	Recent WGD specific to Apioideae	Dynamic gene content variation: Different levels of gene loss and gain	Contraction after initial expansion; Lineage-specific duplications	A. sinensis, C. sativum, A. graveolens [29]

Oleaceae Family: Conservation versus Expansion Strategies

The Oleaceae family exemplifies how different genera have employed distinct NLR evolutionary strategies following WGD events. Research on 23 Fraxinus (ash tree) species and related genera revealed:

• Fraxinus Conservation Strategy: Old World ash tree species exhibit dynamic patterns of gene expansion and contraction within the last 50 million years, but overall demonstrate a predominant strategy of gene conservation [8]. Genes acquired from an ancient WGD event (~35 Mya) have been retained across Fraxinus lineages, maintaining specialized immune responses through conserved genes [8]
• Olea Expansion Strategy: In contrast, the genus Olea (olives) has undergone extensive gene expansion driven by recent duplications and significant birth of novel NLR gene families [8]. This difference in evolutionary strategy potentially enhances Olea's ability to recognize diverse pathogens through recent expansions, while Fraxinus maintains more specialized immune responses with potential trade-offs in pathogen adaptation and energy efficiency [8]
• Family-Wide Trends: All Oleaceae species show enhanced pseudogenization of TIR-NLRs and expansion in CCG10-NLR, indicating consistent directional evolution at the family level despite genus-specific patterns [8]

Apiaceae Family: Dynamic Gene Content Variation

Comparative analysis of four Apiaceae species (Angelica sinensis, Coriandrum sativum, Apium graveolens, and Daucus carota) reveals rapid and dynamic evolution of NLR genes following WGD events [29]:

• Variable NLR Repertoire: The number of NLR genes ranges from 95 in A. sinensis to 183 in C. sativum, representing substantial variation in NLR content [29]
• Ancestral Reconstruction: Phylogenetic analysis demonstrates that NLR genes in these four species were derived from 183 ancestral NLR lineages and experienced different levels of gene loss and gain events [29]
• Differential Evolutionary Patterns: D. carota exhibited a contraction pattern of ancestral NLR lineages, while A. sinensis, C. sativum, and A. graveolens showed a pattern of contraction after initial expansion of NLR genes [29]

Functional and Practical Implications

Association with Disease Resistance

The evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes following WGD events have direct implications for disease resistance in cultivated species:

• Susceptibility of Domesticated Species: Domesticated garden asparagus (A. officinalis) exhibits increased disease susceptibility compared to wild relatives, driven by both contraction of NLR gene repertoire (27 NLRs in A. officinalis versus 63 in wild A. setaceus) and functional impairment of retained NLR genes [30]
• Resistance Correlations in Sorghum: Comparative analysis of anthracnose-resistant (BTx623) and susceptible (GJH1) sorghum cultivars revealed a substantially higher number of NLR genes in the resistant cultivar (302 NLRs versus 239 in the susceptible cultivar), highlighting the relationship between NLR repertoire size and disease resistance [32]
• Expression Patterns: Pathogen inoculation assays in asparagus showed that the majority of preserved NLR genes in susceptible A. officinalis demonstrated either unchanged or downregulated expression following fungal challenge, indicating potential functional impairment as a consequence of artificial selection [30]

Research Reagents and Experimental Tools

The following table outlines essential research reagents and methodologies for studying NLR gene evolution:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Tools for NLR Evolutionary Studies

Reagent/Tool	Function	Application Example	Specifications
NLRtracker	Automated NLR identification and annotation	Processing reference proteomes for NLR mining [31]	Produces NLR sequences, annotations, deduplicated NBARC sequences
Pfam Database (PF00931)	NB-ARC domain HMM profile	Identification of NLR genes using HMMER3 [29]	E-value cutoff 10⁻⁴
PlantCARE	cis-element analysis in promoter regions	Identification of defense-responsive elements in NLR promoters [30]	2000bp upstream sequence analysis
OrthoFinder	Orthologous gene clustering	Clustering NLR genes across species by sequence similarity [30]	BLAST bit scores normalized by gene length
BEDTools	Genomic interval analysis	Identifying NLR cluster patterns and gene orientations [30]	≤8 gene separation for cluster definition

Whole Genome Duplication events serve as critical evolutionary turning points that shape the long-term trajectory of NLR gene family evolution in plants. The evidence from multiple plant families reveals recurrent themes as well as lineage-specific adaptations in how NLR genes respond to WGD. The immediate aftermath of WGD typically involves diploidization processes that often lead to gene contraction, but this can be followed by lineage-specific expansion driven by various molecular mechanisms including accelerated gene duplication, birth of novel genes, and recombination events. The evolutionary path taken by different lineages—whether toward conservation, expansion, or diversification of NLR repertoires—appears to be influenced by multiple factors including life history strategy, environmental pressures, and evolutionary constraints.

These evolutionary patterns have direct practical implications for crop improvement and disease resistance breeding. Wild relatives often harbor more diverse NLR repertoires compared to domesticated varieties, representing valuable genetic resources for introducing enhanced disease resistance into cultivated species. Understanding the long-term evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes following WGD events provides not only fundamental insights into plant genome evolution but also practical strategies for developing more durable disease resistance in agricultural crops. Future research integrating comparative genomics, functional studies, and evolutionary analysis will continue to elucidate the complex relationship between genome duplication events and the evolution of plant immunity.

Positive Selection and Adaptive Evolution in LRR Domains for Pathogen Recognition

The evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens has driven the diversification of the plant immune system, particularly the nucleotide-binding domain and leucine-rich repeat (NLR) receptor family. These intracellular immune receptors recognize pathogen effector proteins and initiate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [33] [34]. The leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains of NLR proteins serve as the primary platform for pathogen recognition, exhibiting exceptional genetic variability shaped by positive selection. This adaptive evolution enables plants to maintain effective immune surveillance against rapidly evolving pathogens [33] [35].

The "guard" model explains how NLRs indirectly detect pathogens by monitoring the status of host proteins that are modified by pathogen effectors, while direct recognition occurs through physical interaction between NLR LRR domains and pathogen effectors [33]. In both scenarios, the LRR domain plays a crucial role in determining recognition specificity. The LRR domain forms a solenoid-like structure with parallel β-sheets lining the inner concave surface, providing an extensive binding interface [33]. The solvent-exposed residues in these β-sheets are frequent targets of diversifying selection, allowing for rapid adaptation to new pathogen effectors [35]. This review synthesizes current understanding of the molecular mechanisms, evolutionary patterns, and experimental approaches for studying positive selection in LRR domains, framed within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution in plants.

Molecular Basis of Positive Selection in LRR Domains

Structural Framework for Diversification

The LRR domain provides a versatile structural scaffold that can accommodate significant sequence variation while maintaining its overall structural integrity. Each LRR unit typically consists of 20-30 amino acids with a conserved segment rich in leucine or other hydrophobic residues and a variable segment that forms the β-strand/β-turn region [33]. The parallel β-sheets create a large surface area for protein-protein interactions, with the hypervariable β-sheet residues directly engaging in pathogen recognition [33] [35].

This structural arrangement allows substantial sequence diversification in the binding interface without compromising the overall protein fold. Plant NLR proteins typically contain 10-30 LRR repeats, with approximately 14 LRRs per protein on average in Arabidopsis thaliana [35]. With 5-10 sequence variants for each repeat position, the combinatorial possibilities generate enormous diversity, potentially creating over 9 × 10¹¹ variant LRR domains in Arabidopsis alone [35]. This extensive variability provides the raw material for natural selection to act upon when new pathogen recognition specificities emerge.

Mechanisms Generating Diversity

Multiple genetic mechanisms contribute to the diversification of LRR domains, operating at different evolutionary timescales:

Point mutations: Single nucleotide substitutions, particularly non-synonymous mutations in solvent-exposed residues, introduce amino acid changes that alter binding specificity. These mutations are often under positive selection, as evidenced by elevated ratios of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions (dN/dS > 1) [35].

Gene conversion: Sequence exchange between paralogous genes creates novel combinations of polymorphisms. Type I NLR genes in lettuce exhibit frequent gene conversion events, contributing to their rapid evolution [35].

Unequal crossing-over: Meiotic recombination between misaligned homologous chromosomes generates copy number variations and hybrid genes with altered specificities. This process frequently occurs in genomic regions with clustered NLR genes [35] [36].

Domain shuffling: Exchange of entire LRR units or subdomains between NLR genes creates proteins with novel recognition capabilities [36].

These mechanisms collectively maintain a diverse repertoire of recognition specificities within plant populations, enabling rapid adaptation to changing pathogen communities.

Table 1: Genetic Mechanisms Driving LRR Domain Diversification

Mechanism	Evolutionary Timescale	Impact on Recognition Specificity	Evidence
Point mutations	Short-term	Alters binding affinity and specificity	Elevated dN/dS ratios in solvent-exposed residues [35]
Gene conversion	Short to medium-term	Creates novel allele combinations	Rapid evolution of Type I NLR genes in lettuce [35]
Unequal crossing-over	Medium-term	Generates copy number variation and hybrid genes	NLR gene clustering and variation in cluster size [35] [36]
Domain shuffling	Long-term	Produces proteins with novel domain architectures	Diverse NLR domain combinations across plant lineages [36]

Evidence and Patterns of Positive Selection

Molecular Evolutionary Signatures

Comparative sequence analyses of NLR genes consistently reveal strong signatures of positive selection acting on LRR domains. Studies across multiple plant species, including Arabidopsis, lettuce, and flax, have demonstrated significantly elevated ratios of non-synonymous to synonymous substitutions (dN/dS) in the codons corresponding to solvent-exposed residues of the LRR β-sheets [35]. This pattern indicates that natural selection favors amino acid changes at these positions, presumably because they alter recognition specificity and provide adaptive advantages against pathogens.

The rate of evolution varies considerably among different NLR genes and even among different regions within the same gene. The NBS domain typically evolves under purifying selection, maintaining conserved structural motifs essential for nucleotide binding and signaling activation [35]. In contrast, the LRR region exhibits high variability, with diversifying selection maintaining polymorphism at specific residues. This heterogeneous selective pressure across protein domains reflects their distinct functional constraints—the NBS domain requires structural conservation for proper functioning, while the LRR domain benefits from variability to recognize diverse pathogens [35].

Lineage-Specific Expansion and Contraction

NLR gene families show remarkable variation in size across plant species, reflecting lineage-specific evolutionary trajectories shaped by pathogen pressures. Genome-wide analyses have identified between approximately 150 NLR genes in Arabidopsis thaliana to over 2,000 in hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) [37] [35]. This expansion and contraction of NLR repertoires represents a macroevolutionary response to pathogen communities.

Recent comparative genomic studies in the Asparagus genus revealed a marked contraction of NLR genes during domestication, with wild species Asparagus setaceus containing 63 NLR genes compared to only 27 in cultivated garden asparagus (A. officinalis) [4]. This reduction in NLR diversity correlated with increased disease susceptibility in the domesticated species, demonstrating the functional significance of maintaining diverse NLR repertoires [4]. Similarly, studies in the Fabaceae family showed tribe-specific expansion and contraction patterns, with the Trifolieae tribe exhibiting significant NLRome expansion despite overall genome size constraints [28].

Table 2: Evolutionary Patterns of NLR Genes Across Plant Species

Plant Species	NLR Gene Count	TIR-type	Non-TIR-type	Evolutionary Pattern
Arabidopsis thaliana	~150 [35] [34]	62% [37]	38% [37]	Balanced repertoire
Oryza sativa (rice)	>400 [35]	0% [35]	100% [35]	Complete loss of TNLs
Triticum aestivum (wheat)	>2,000 [37]	Not specified	Not specified	Massive expansion
Asparagus officinalis (cultivated)	27 [4]	Classified into 3 subfamilies [4]	Classified into 3 subfamilies [4]	Domesticated contraction
Asparagus setaceus (wild)	63 [4]	Classified into 3 subfamilies [4]	Classified into 3 subfamilies [4]	Wild expanded repertoire
Vicioid legume tribes	Variable [28]	Not specified	Not specified	Tribe-specific expansion/contraction

Experimental Analysis of LRR Domain Evolution

Detecting Positive Selection: Methodological Approaches

Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Reconstruction Begin with genome-wide identification of NLR genes using HMMER searches with the NB-ARC domain (PF00931) as query [4]. Extract LRR domains based on Pfam annotations and generate multiple sequence alignments using Clustal Omega or MAFFT with default parameters [4]. For cross-species comparisons, include orthologous sequences from closely related species to establish phylogenetic relationships using maximum likelihood methods (e.g., RAxML or IQ-TREE) with 1000 bootstrap replicates [4].

Selection Analysis Use codon-based models implemented in PAML (CodeML) or HyPhy to detect sites under positive selection [35]. The branch-site test is particularly useful for detecting episodic positive selection affecting specific sites along particular lineages. Alternatively, the MEME (Mixed Effects Model of Evolution) method in HyPhy can identify sites evolving under diversifying selection across a phylogeny. Key parameters include: comparing models M1a (nearly neutral) vs M2a (positive selection) and M7 (beta) vs M8 (beta+ω); sites with posterior probability >0.95 and dN/dS (ω) >1 indicate positive selection [35].

Structural Mapping Map positively selected sites to LRR protein structures using homology modeling. Thread LRR sequences onto solved LRR structures (e.g., PDB entries for non-plant LRR proteins) using SWISS-MODEL or Phyre2 [33]. Solvent accessibility calculations (e.g., with DSSP) help distinguish between buried and exposed residues, with positive selection expected predominantly at solvent-exposed positions [33] [35].

Functional Validation of Adaptive Changes

Site-Directed Mutagenesis Introduce point mutations at positively selected sites using overlap extension PCR or commercial mutagenesis kits. For example, to test the functional significance of specific LRR residues, create allelic series with individual amino acid substitutions [38]. Clone mutated NLR genes into binary vectors (e.g., pCAMBIA series) for plant transformation or transient expression.

Hypersensitive Response (HR) Assays Use Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transient expression in Nicotiana benthamiana leaves to test recognition specificity [38]. Infiltrate cultures (OD₆₀₀ = 0.3-0.5) expressing wild-type or mutant NLR genes alone or with candidate effectors. Score HR development (localized cell death) visually and quantify using electrolyte leakage assays or chlorophyll content measurements [38].

Protein-Protein Interaction Studies For direct recognition systems, test binding between mutant LRR domains and pathogen effectors using yeast two-hybrid assays [33] [35]. Clone LRR domains into both bait and prey vectors and quantify interactions using β-galactosidase assays or growth selection. For indirect recognition systems, use co-immunoprecipitation to assess formation of protein complexes with guardees or decoys [33].

Diagram 1: Experimental workflow for detecting and validating positive selection in LRR domains. The pipeline progresses from bioinformatic identification (yellow) to evolutionary analysis (green) and functional validation (red).

Case Studies in LRR Adaptive Evolution

Direct Recognition Systems

The flax L locus provides a classic example of direct recognition mediated by LRR domains. The L5, L6, and L7 NLR proteins from flax directly bind specific variants of the AvrL567 effector from the flax rust fungus Melampsora lini [33]. Yeast two-hybrid experiments demonstrated that these interactions recapitulate the in vivo specificity observed in plants, with single amino acid changes in the LRR domain altering recognition specificity [33]. Similarly, the rice Pi-ta protein confers resistance to strains of the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe grisea expressing the AVR-Pita effector through direct binding of the LRR-like domain to the processed form of the effector [33].

Molecular evolutionary analyses of these direct recognition systems reveal strong positive selection at specific LRR residues involved in effector binding. For the flax L proteins, comparative sequence analysis of allelic variants showed elevated dN/dS ratios in solvent-exposed β-sheet residues, indicating diversifying selection maintaining polymorphism at these critical recognition positions [35].

Indirect Recognition Systems

The Arabidopsis RPM1 and RPS2 proteins exemplify indirect recognition mechanisms, where the NLR proteins monitor the status of host proteins modified by pathogen effectors. RPM1 detects the phosphorylation status of RIN4 induced by the bacterial effectors AvrRpm1 and AvrB, while RPS2 detects cleavage of RIN4 by the cysteine protease AvrRpt2 [33]. In both cases, the LRR domains are thought to detect conformational changes in the guarded protein (RIN4) rather than directly binding the pathogen effectors.

Evolutionary analyses of indirect recognition systems show different selective patterns compared to direct recognition. While the LRR domains still exhibit evidence of positive selection, the guarded proteins (e.g., RIN4) often show even stronger signatures of diversifying selection, as they represent the direct interface with pathogen effectors [33]. This creates a coevolutionary triangle between the NLR, its guardee, and the pathogen effectors, with selective pressures distributed across multiple components of the recognition system.

Artificial Evolution Studies

Experimental evolution of the potato Rx NLR protein demonstrated the potential for engineering expanded recognition specificities through LRR domain modifications. Random mutagenesis of the Rx LRR domain generated variants (e.g., RxM1 with N846D mutation) that recognized not only the wild-type PVX coat protein but also previously unrecognized strains (PVX-CPKR) and the distantly related poplar mosaic virus (PopMV) [38]. However, this broadened recognition specificity came with a fitness cost—transgenic plants expressing RxM1 developed trailing necrosis when infected with PopMV [38].

Second-site mutagenesis of the sensitized RxM1 background identified compensatory mutations (e.g., G340R) near the nucleotide-binding pocket that enhanced activation sensitivity without compromising broad recognition [38]. These studies illustrate the evolutionary trade-offs between recognition breadth and autoimmunity, and demonstrate how stepwise artificial evolution can optimize NLR proteins for agricultural applications.

Diagram 2: Direct versus indirect recognition mechanisms in NLR-mediated immunity. Pathogen effectors (red) are detected either through direct binding to LRR domains (yellow) or indirectly through monitoring modified host proteins (blue), leading to NLR activation (purple).

Research Reagent Solutions

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Studying LRR Domain Evolution

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Features
Bioinformatic Tools	HMMER (Pfam PF00931) [4], InterProScan [4], MEME suite [4]	NLR identification, domain annotation, motif discovery	Genome-wide annotation, conserved motif identification
Evolutionary Analysis Software	PAML (CodeML) [35], HyPhy [35], MEGA [4]	Selection detection, phylogenetic reconstruction	dN/dS calculation, branch-site tests, tree building
Structural Modeling	SWISS-MODEL, Phyre2 [33]	Homology modeling, structure visualization	Template identification, model quality assessment
Cloning & Expression	Gateway-compatible vectors, pCAMBIA series [38]	Protein expression, plant transformation	Binary vectors for Agrobacterium-mediated expression
Transient Assay Systems	Nicotiana benthamiana [38], Agrobacterium infiltration [38]	Functional validation, protein localization	High-throughput screening, subcellular localization
Interaction Assays	Yeast two-hybrid system [33], Co-immunoprecipitation [33]	Protein-protein interaction studies	Direct binding tests, complex formation analysis
Phenotypic Readouts	Electrolyte leakage assays [38], chlorophyll content [38]	Hypersensitive response quantification	Objective HR measurement, cell death quantification

The LRR domains of plant NLR immune receptors represent remarkable examples of adaptive evolution in action. Positive selection acting on solvent-exposed residues has shaped these domains into highly versatile pathogen recognition platforms capable of tracking rapidly evolving pathogen effectors. The evolutionary dynamics of LRR domains reflect a complex balance between generating novel recognition specificities and maintaining functional protein folds, between expanding detection capabilities and avoiding detrimental autoimmunity.

Recent advances in comparative genomics, molecular evolution analyses, and protein engineering have provided unprecedented insights into the mechanisms driving LRR diversification. The development of sophisticated experimental approaches—from genome-wide selection scans to artificial evolution—has enabled researchers to not only understand natural evolutionary processes but also to engineer improved disease resistance traits. As we continue to unravel the complexities of LRR domain evolution, this knowledge will be crucial for developing sustainable crop protection strategies that can keep pace with rapidly evolving plant pathogens.

From Sequences to Resistance: Modern Pipelines for NLR Identification and Deployment

Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins constitute a critical component of the plant innate immune system, serving as intracellular immune receptors that trigger defense responses upon detecting pathogen-derived effectors. These proteins exhibit a characteristic modular structure typically consisting of a central nucleotide-binding domain (NB-ARC or NACHT), a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domain involved in effector recognition, and variable N-terminal domains such as coiled-coil (CC), Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR), or RPW8 that determine signaling specificity [11] [39]. The NLR gene family represents one of the most abundant and diverse gene families in plant genomes, characterized by remarkable polymorphism and dynamic evolution driven primarily by gene duplication events and positive selection pressure from rapidly evolving pathogens [11] [40].

This evolutionary arms race presents significant bioinformatic challenges for researchers. NLR genes are often organized in complex clusters, particularly near telomeric regions, and exhibit substantial presence/absence variation between even closely related ecotypes [11] [39]. For instance, while Arabidopsis thaliana contains approximately 150 NLR genes, Oryza sativa (rice) harbors around 500, illustrating the dramatic interspecies variation [11]. The high sequence diversity, particularly in the hypervariable LRR domains, complicates genome annotation and functional prediction, often generating pseudogenes and truncated NLRs that confound automated analysis [11]. Furthermore, the expansion of NLR repertoires through mechanisms like tandem duplication, segmental duplication, and retrotransposition necessitates sophisticated computational approaches to accurately identify and classify these important immune receptors across diverse plant genomes [11] [24].

Foundational Bioinformatics Tools

BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool

BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) represents a fundamental algorithm for sequence similarity searching that has become indispensable in genomic research. The tool finds regions of local similarity between biological sequences by comparing nucleotide or protein sequences against databases and calculating the statistical significance of matches [41]. BLAST enables researchers to infer functional and evolutionary relationships between sequences and identify members of gene families through several specialized implementations [42].

Key BLAST variants for NLR research include:

• BLASTp: Compares one or more protein query sequences against a protein database, making it ideal for identifying putative NLR genes based on known NLR protein sequences [42].
• BLASTn: Compares nucleotide sequences against nucleotide databases, useful for identifying genomic regions harboring NLR genes [42].
• BLASTx: Translates nucleotide queries in six reading frames and compares them against protein databases, particularly valuable for analyzing newly sequenced DNA where reading frames are unknown [42].
• tBLASTn: Compares protein queries against six-frame translations of nucleotide databases, enabling discovery of homologous coding regions in unannotated genomic sequences [42].

In practice, NLR identification often begins with BLAST searches using known NLR protein sequences from model organisms like Arabidopsis against target proteomes. For example, a recent study of NLRs in pepper (Capsicum annuum) retrieved Arabidopsis NLR sequences from TAIR and used BLASTp against the pepper proteome as an initial identification step [11]. The statistical parameters provided in BLAST results—including E-value (number of alignments expected by chance), query coverage (percentage of query sequence aligned), and percent identity—help researchers distinguish genuine NLR homologs from spurious matches [42].

HMMER: Profile Hidden Markov Models

HMMER employs probabilistic models known as profile Hidden Markov Models (profile HMMs) for sensitive sequence similarity searching and alignment, offering significant advantages for detecting remote homologs in protein families like NLRs [43] [44]. Unlike BLAST, which primarily uses pairwise sequence comparisons, HMMER leverages multiple sequence alignments to build statistical models of protein families, enabling more sensitive detection of evolutionarily divergent family members [44]. The latest HMMER3 implementation performs this sophisticated analysis at speeds comparable to BLAST, making it practical for genome-wide studies [44].

Essential HMMER programs for NLR analysis include:

• hmmsearch: Searches one or more profile HMMs against a protein sequence database, ideal for identifying NLR genes using pre-built NLR-specific HMM profiles [43].
• hmmscan: Searches protein sequences against collections of profile HMMs (e.g., Pfam database), useful for domain annotation within putative NLR genes [43].
• jackhmmer: Performs iterative searches of a query sequence against a target database, progressively building more refined profile HMMs with each iteration to identify distant homologs [43] [39].
• hmmbuild: Constructs profile HMMs from multiple sequence alignments, enabling researchers to create custom NLR domain models [43].

In the pepper NLR study, researchers used HMMER v3.3.2 to search the entire pepper proteome for core NLR domains (PF00931) using an E-value cutoff of 1×10⁻⁵ [11]. This HMMER-based approach complemented their initial BLASTp searches, providing a more comprehensive identification of NLR candidates. The resulting candidates were subsequently validated using NCBI's Conserved Domain Database (cd00204 for NB-ARC) and Pfam batch searches to confirm the presence and completeness of characteristic NLR domains [11].

Specialized NLR Annotation Tools

NLRtracker: A Sensitive NLR Annotation Pipeline

NLRtracker represents one of the most sensitive and accurate tools specifically designed for genome-wide identification and classification of NLR genes [45]. This integrated pipeline combines multiple bioinformatic approaches to overcome the challenges posed by NLR diversity and domain variability. Benchmarking studies have demonstrated that NLRtracker outperforms other available tools in sensitivity and accuracy when applied to RefSeq genomes of model species like Arabidopsis, tomato, and rice [45].

The tool operates through a sophisticated workflow that integrates InterProScan for domain annotation, HMMER for identifying conserved NLR domains, and MEME for detecting predefined NLR motifs [46] [45]. This multi-layered approach enables NLRtracker to comprehensively classify NLRs into subclasses (CNL, TNL, RNL, NL) based on their domain architecture and provide detailed output including NB-ARC sequences, domain boundaries, and GFF annotation files [46]. The software is distributed via GitHub and requires manual installation of dependencies, which may present challenges for users without bioinformatics expertise [46] [39].

A recent application of NLRtracker to Oleaceae family genomes exemplifies its utility in comparative genomics. Researchers analyzed 30 genomes from Fraxinus, Olea, Jasminum, Forsythia, and Syringa genera, successfully identifying NLR repertoires across these diverse species [24]. This large-scale analysis revealed evolutionary patterns including pseudogenization of TIR-NLRs and expansion of CCG10-NLRs across the Oleaceae family, providing insights into the adaptive evolution of immune genes in response to different pathogenic pressures [24].

Resistify: A Modern NLR Classifier

Resistify represents a recent advancement in NLR annotation, designed to overcome limitations of previous tools by integrating HMMER searches with machine learning approaches [39]. This tool implements a custom database of HMMs derived from curated Pfam entries to identify CC, RPW8, TIR, NB-ARC domains, as well as specialized motifs like C-terminal jelly-roll/Ig-like domain (C-JID) and MADA motifs characteristic of NRC helper NLRs [39].

A key innovation in Resistify is its reimplementation of NLRexpress, a machine learning framework for predicting NLR-associated motifs [39]. Unlike tools that rely on InterProScan for domain annotation, Resistify uses optimized HMM searches combined with random forest classifiers to achieve high accuracy while reducing computational overhead [39]. This approach proves particularly valuable for identifying challenging domains like CC, which exhibit high sequence variability and are frequently missed by conventional domain annotation tools [39].

Resistify's development was motivated by the need for tools compatible with modern bioinformatics workflows and high-performance computing environments [39]. The tool is notably more accessible than many alternatives, available through multiple distribution channels including GitHub, PyPI, Conda, Docker, and Singularity, significantly reducing installation barriers [39]. Application of Resistify to Solanaceae genomes has revealed previously undescribed associations between NLRs and Helitron transposable elements, highlighting how specialized tools can uncover novel biological insights into NLR evolution and genomic organization [39].

Comparative Analysis of NLR Annotation Tools

Table 1: Comparison of NLR Annotation Tools

Tool	Input Data	Method	Output	Distribution
NLRtracker	Protein, Transcript	InterProScan, HMMER, MEME	Classification, NB-ARC sequence, domains, GFF annotation	GitHub, Manual dependency installation [46] [39]
Resistify	Protein	HMMER, NLRexpress (machine learning)	Classification, NLR sequence, NB-ARC sequence, motif position	GitHub, PyPI, Conda, Docker, Singularity [39]
NLGenomeSweeper	Transcript, Genomic	InterProScan, MUSCLE, TransDecoder, BLAST, HMMER	Classification, Genome position, GFF annotation	GitHub, Manual dependency installation [39]
RGAugury	Transcript, Genomic	InterProScan, nCoils, pfam_scan, Phobius	Classification, Genome position, GFF annotation	GitHub, Online or local webservice, Docker container [39]

Integrated Workflow for NLR Identification and Analysis

Comprehensive NLR Identification Protocol

A robust workflow for genome-wide NLR identification integrates multiple complementary approaches to maximize sensitivity and accuracy. The recent study in Capsicum annuum provides an exemplary protocol that combines homology searching, domain identification, and manual curation [11].

Step 1: Initial Homology Searching

• Retrieve known NLR protein sequences from reference databases (e.g., TAIR for Arabidopsis NLRs)
• Perform BLASTp searches against the target proteome using an E-value threshold of 1×10⁻⁵ or lower
• Conduct parallel HMMER searches using core NLR domain profiles (e.g., PF00931 for NB-ARC domain) against the complete proteome

Step 2: Domain Validation and Classification

• Validate candidate sequences using NCBI's Conserved Domain Database (cd00204 for NB-ARC)
• Confirm domain presence and completeness via Pfam batch search or InterProScan
• Classify NLRs based on N-terminal domains (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal LRR domains
• Remove redundant sequences and manually inspect borderline cases

Step 3: Evolutionary and Genomic Analysis

• Analyze chromosomal distribution and identify clustering patterns, particularly in telomeric regions
• Identify gene duplication events (tandem, segmental) using synteny analysis tools like MCScanX
• Construct phylogenetic trees using Maximum Likelihood methods with 1000 bootstrap replicates
• Predict promoter cis-regulatory elements in regions 2kb upstream of translation start sites

This integrated approach identified 288 high-confidence canonical NLR genes in pepper, with chromosomal distribution analysis revealing significant clustering near telomeric regions, particularly on chromosome 09, which harbored the highest density (63 NLRs) [11]. Evolutionary analysis demonstrated that tandem duplication served as the primary driver of NLR family expansion, accounting for 18.4% of NLR genes (53/288), predominantly on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11].

Expression and Functional Analysis

Following identification, NLR candidates require functional characterization through expression analysis and protein interaction studies. The pepper study employed RNA-seq analysis of Phytophthora capsici-infected resistant (CM334) and susceptible (NMCA10399) cultivars to identify differentially expressed NLR genes [11].

Expression Analysis Protocol:

• Download RNA-seq reads from relevant experiments (e.g., SRA database)
• Map reads to the reference genome using Hisat2 or similar aligners
• Calculate FPKM values and identify differentially expressed genes using DESeq2 with |logâ‚‚ Fold Change| ≥ 1 and FDR < 0.05
• Perform GO and KEGG enrichment analysis to identify functional categories
• Validate expression patterns through RT-qPCR under controlled conditions

Protein Interaction and Structure Analysis:

• Predict protein-protein interaction networks using STRING database (confidence >0.4)
• Model protein structures using SWISS-MODEL for key NLR candidates
• Identify potential interaction hubs within the NLR network

Application of this protocol in pepper identified 44 significantly differentially expressed NLR genes following Phytophthora capsici infection, with protein-protein interaction network analysis predicting key interactions among them [11]. The analysis identified Caz01g22900 and Caz09g03820 as potential hubs in the network, and pinpointed specific candidate genes (Caz03g40070, Caz09g03770, Caz10g20900, and Caz10g21150) for further functional characterization [11].

Diagram 1: Comprehensive NLR Identification and Analysis Workflow. This workflow integrates multiple bioinformatic approaches for robust NLR gene family characterization.

Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Studies

Table 2: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for NLR Genomics

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function in NLR Research	Application Example
Sequence Databases	TAIR, NCBI RefSeq, Phytozome	Source of reference NLR sequences and proteomes	Retrieving Arabidopsis NLR sequences for BLASTp against target proteomes [11]
Domain Databases	Pfam, NCBI CDD, InterPro	Identification and validation of NLR domains	Checking NB-ARC domains (cd00204) and LRR domains [11]
Genomic Tools	MCScanX, TBtools, SynVisio	Synteny analysis and duplication event detection	Identifying tandem duplication events in NLR clusters [11] [24]
Expression Analysis	DESeq2, Hisat2, StringTie	RNA-seq analysis and differential expression	Identifying NLR genes responsive to pathogen infection [11]
Specialized NLR Tools	NLRtracker, Resistify, NLRannotator	Automated NLR identification and classification	Genome-wide NLR mining in Oleaceae and Solanaceae species [39] [24]

The integration of established tools like BLAST and HMMER with specialized NLR annotation pipelines represents the most effective strategy for comprehensive NLR gene family analysis. BLAST provides rapid homology-based identification, while HMMER offers sensitive domain detection using profile hidden Markov models [11] [44]. Specialized tools like NLRtracker and Resistify build upon these foundations, incorporating additional layers of analysis specifically optimized for the challenges posed by NLR diversity and evolution [39] [45].

The exemplary workflow implemented in the pepper NLR study demonstrates how these tools can be integrated to not only identify complete NLR repertoires but also to elucidate their evolutionary history, expression dynamics, and potential functional roles in disease resistance [11]. Similarly, applications in Oleaceae and Solanaceae families have revealed how NLR repertoires adapt differently across lineages—through conservation in Fraxinus and expansion in Olea—highlighting the power of comparative genomic approaches [24].

As NLR research continues to evolve, several emerging trends promise to enhance our analytical capabilities. Machine learning approaches, as implemented in Resistify and NLRexpress, offer improved accuracy for identifying challenging domains like CC [39]. The growing availability of high-quality genome assemblies across diverse plant taxa enables more comprehensive comparative studies [24]. Additionally, the integration of pan-genome approaches with NLR analysis will provide deeper insights into the presence/absence variation that characterizes these dynamic immune genes [39]. These advancements, combined with the robust bioinformatic workflows described herein, will continue to drive discoveries in plant immunity and facilitate the development of disease-resistant crop varieties through molecular breeding approaches.

The plant immune system relies heavily on nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs) as intracellular sentinels that recognize pathogen effectors and activate robust defense responses. The evolution of the NLR gene family in plants is characterized by remarkable dynamism, with gene numbers varying drastically between species and even among ecotypes—from approximately 150 in Arabidopsis thaliana to over 500 in rice (Oryza sativa) [11] [10]. This expansion, primarily driven by gene duplication events, represents an evolutionary arms race with rapidly evolving pathogens [11]. Traditional identification of functional NLR immune receptors has been resource-intensive, creating a bottleneck in resistance gene discovery. However, emerging evidence reveals that functional NLRs exhibit a distinct signature of high transcript abundance in uninfected plants, providing a powerful predictive filter for candidate prioritization [9]. This technical guide explores the mechanistic basis, methodological framework, and practical application of expression signatures for predicting functional NLRs within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution.

Theoretical Foundation: Linking NLR Expression and Function

The Paradigm Shift in NLR Expression Understanding

The longstanding paradigm suggested NLR genes require strict transcriptional repression to avoid autoimmunity and fitness costs [10]. This view is challenged by compelling evidence that functional NLRs are often among the most highly expressed transcripts in their families. A systematic analysis across monocot and dicot species demonstrated that known functional NLRs are significantly enriched in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts compared to the lower 85% (χ² = 4.2979, P = 0.038) [9]. In Arabidopsis thaliana, the most highly expressed NLR is ZAR1, a well-characterized immune receptor, with expression levels above the median and mean for all genes in the accession Col-0 [9]. This pattern holds across diverse species, where NLRs previously identified through traditional methods, such as CcRpp1 from Cajanus cajan and Rpi-amr1 from Solanum americanum, are present in highly expressed NLR transcripts [9].

Evolutionary and Mechanistic Basis

The correlation between high expression and NLR functionality is rooted in evolutionary constraints and molecular mechanisms. During plant domestication, NLR gene repertoires frequently contract, with retained NLRs often showing reduced or inconsistent induction upon pathogen challenge. A comparative analysis of garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and its wild relatives revealed a marked contraction of NLR genes during domestication, with gene counts of 63, 47, and 27 NLRs identified in A. setaceus, A. kiusianus, and the domesticated A. officinalis, respectively [4]. This contraction, potentially driven by selection for yield and quality over resistance, underscores how artificial selection can shape NLR expression profiles and functionality.

At the molecular level, certain NLRs require expression thresholds for function. In barley, multiple copies of the Mla7 NLR gene are necessary for full resistance complementation to powdery mildew, with only transgenic lines carrying two or more copies showing resistance, and full recapitulation of native resistance in lines with four copies [9]. This gene dosage effect suggests that a specific expression threshold is required for functionality, explaining why native Mla7 exists in three identical copies in the haploid genome of barley cv. CI 16147 [9].

Table 1: Evidence Supporting the High-Expression Functional NLR Signature

Evidence Type	Experimental System	Key Finding	Reference
Phylogenetic Distribution	Multiple monocots and dicots	Known functional NLRs enriched in top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts	[9]
Gene Dosage Requirement	Barley Mla7 transgenics	Multiple copies required for resistance function, suggesting expression threshold	[9]
Evolutionary Conservation	Arabidopsis accessions	ZAR1 consistently highly expressed across ecotypes	[9]
Tissue Specificity	Tomato roots and leaves	Tissue-specific expression patterns reflect pathogen challenge anticipation	[9] [10]
Domestication Impact	Asparagus species	NLR contraction and dysregulated expression in domesticated species	[4]

Methodological Framework for NLR Identification and Expression Analysis

Genome-Wide NLR Identification

Accurate identification of NLR genes is the foundational step in expression-based prediction. The following pipeline represents the consensus methodology from multiple studies:

• Sequence Retrieval: Obtain high-quality genomic sequences and annotation files for the target species. Genome completeness assessment using tools like BUSCO is critical (e.g., 97.5% completeness for asparagus genome) [4].
• HMMER Search: Perform Hidden Markov Model searches using the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) as a query with an E-value cutoff of 1e-4 to 1e-10 [4] [7].
• BLAST Analysis: Conduct complementary BLASTp searches against reference NLR protein sequences from related species, applying stringent E-value cutoffs (1e-10) [4] [11].
• Domain Validation: Verify candidate sequences through domain architecture analysis using InterProScan, NCBI's CD-Search, or Pfam batch search to confirm presence of NB-ARC and other characteristic domains [4] [11].
• Classification: Categorize NLRs into subfamilies (CNL, TNL, RNL) based on N-terminal domains and full-length architecture, including truncated variants [4].

For complex polyploid genomes, specialized tools like the DaapNLRSeek pipeline have been developed to improve annotation accuracy by leveraging diploid ancestry information [47].

Transcriptional Profiling Methodologies

Comprehensive transcriptional profiling establishes baseline expression levels for NLR prioritization:

• RNA Sequencing: Conduct RNA-seq of uninfected plant tissues relevant to pathogen infection (often leaves). Use multiple biological replicates for statistical robustness.
• Read Processing: Map clean reads to the reference genome using tools like Hisat2, then calculate expression values (FPKM or TPM) for all genes [11].
• Differential Expression: Identify significantly differentially expressed genes using tools like DESeq2 with thresholds of |log2 Fold Change| ≥ 1 and FDR < 0.05 [11].
• Expression Ranking: Rank NLR genes by their transcript abundance in uninfected tissues, focusing on the top 15-20% of expressed NLRs as primary candidates [9].
• Validation: Confirm expression patterns through RT-qPCR with appropriate reference genes for normalization.

Figure 1: Workflow for Expression-Based Prediction of Functional NLRs

Experimental Validation and Case Studies

Large-Scale Functional Screening

The predictive power of expression signatures has been validated through large-scale functional screens. In a landmark study, researchers generated a transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grass species in wheat, using high-efficiency transformation protocols [9]. Candidates were selected based on expression signatures and other bioinformatic filters. This resource-intensive approach confirmed 31 new resistant NLRs: 19 effective against stem rust (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici) and 12 against leaf rust (Puccinia triticina), major threats to wheat production [9]. This represents a significant expansion of the known NLR repertoire against these pathogens, where only 13 and 7 NLRs had been previously cloned for stem rust and leaf rust resistance, respectively [9].

Expression Dynamics in Plant-Pathogen Interactions

While baseline expression in uninfected tissues predicts functionality, NLR expression is also dynamically regulated during defense responses. Promoter analysis of NLR genes consistently reveals abundant cis-elements responsive to defense signals and phytohormones [4]. In pepper (Capsicum annuum), 82.6% of NLR promoters contain binding sites for salicylic acid (SA) and/or jasmonic acid (JA) signaling [11]. Transcriptome profiling of Phytophthora capsici-infected resistant and susceptible pepper cultivars identified 44 significantly differentially expressed NLR genes, indicating complex regulation during pathogen challenge [11].

Table 2: Expression-Based NLR Discovery in Wheat - Outcomes and Implications

Parameter	Pre-Screening Knowledge	Post-Screening Results	Significance
Stem Rust NLRs	13 cloned NLRs	19 new resistant NLRs identified	146% increase in known effective NLRs
Leaf Rust NLRs	7 cloned NLRs	12 new resistant NLRs identified	171% increase in known effective NLRs
Validation Rate	Not applicable	31/995 NLRs confirmed functional	3.1% success rate from initial pool
Species Origin	Primarily from wheat and close relatives	Diverse grass species	Expands genetic diversity for breeding
Screening Method	Traditional genetics & map-based cloning	Expression signature + high-throughput transformation	Accelerates discovery pipeline

Tissue-Specific Expression Patterns

NLR expression patterns often reflect organ-specific pathogen challenges. A meta-analysis revealed that NLR expression shows tissue preference corresponding to anticipated effector exposure [10]. For example, Arabidopsis exhibits higher NLR expression in shoots relative to roots, while the legume Lotus shows the opposite trend [10]. Similarly, in tomato, the NLR Mi-1 provides resistance to potato aphid and whitefly in foliar tissue and root-knot nematode in roots, with corresponding high expression in both tissues [9]. Helper NLRs, such as those in the NRC family, also display tissue specificity, with NRC6 highly expressed in tomato roots but not leaves [9]. These patterns highlight the importance of examining appropriate tissues when applying expression-based prediction methods.

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents and Solutions

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Expression-Based NLR Discovery

Reagent/Solution	Function/Application	Technical Considerations
HMMER Suite	Identification of NLR genes using conserved NB-ARC domain	Use Pfam PF00931 model with E-value cutoff 1e-4 to 1e-10
PlantCARE Database	Prediction of cis-regulatory elements in NLR promoters	Analyze 2kb upstream sequence for defense-related motifs
DESeq2	Differential expression analysis of RNA-seq data	Apply	log2FC	≥1 and FDR <0.05 thresholds
AlphaFold2-Multimer	Prediction of NLR-effector protein complex structures	Recently enabled in silico analysis of NLR-effector interactions [48]
Area-Affinity ML Models	Prediction of binding affinities for NLR-effector complexes	97 machine learning models enable interaction prediction [48]
High-Efficiency Wheat Transformation System	Large-scale in planta validation of NLR candidates	Enabled testing of 995 NLRs in transgenic array [9]
RT-qPCR Reagents	Validation of NLR expression patterns	Requires appropriate reference genes for normalization
Akt-IN-25	Akt-IN-25, MF:C14H16N4O, MW:256.30 g/mol	Chemical Reagent
K-252d	K-252d, MF:C26H23N3O5, MW:457.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent

Integration with Evolutionary Genomics

The expression-based prediction of functional NLRs gains power when integrated with evolutionary genomic analyses. Comparative genomics across related species reveals dynamic evolutionary patterns of NLR genes, including expansion and contraction events that shape functional repertoires [7]. In Apiaceae species, NLR gene numbers vary considerably, ranging from 95 in Angelica sinensis to 183 in Coriandrum sativum, with phylogenetic analysis demonstrating that these genes were derived from 183 ancestral NLR lineages and experienced different levels of gene-loss and gain events [7]. Similarly, in asparagus, orthologous gene analysis identified 16 conserved NLR gene pairs between the wild A. setaceus and domesticated A. officinalis, representing NLRs preserved during domestication [4].

Figure 2: Integration of Evolutionary Analysis and Expression Signatures in NLR Research

The integration of evolutionary analysis with expression data creates a powerful filter for candidate prioritization. NLR genes that are both evolutionarily conserved and highly expressed represent particularly promising candidates for functional studies. This approach has successfully identified conserved candidate NLR genes in pepper, including Caz03g40070, Caz09g03770, Caz10g20900, and Caz10g21150, for further investigation in Phytophthora capsici resistance [11].

The exploitation of expression signatures represents a paradigm shift in functional NLR identification, moving from resource-intensive traditional methods to predictive bioinformatics-guided approaches. The consistent finding that functional NLRs exhibit high transcript abundance in uninfected tissues provides a powerful filter for prioritizing candidates from the vast NLR repertoires in plant genomes. When integrated with evolutionary genomics, structural prediction tools like AlphaFold2-Multimer [48], and high-throughput transformation platforms, expression signatures accelerate the discovery of valuable resistance genes. This approach is particularly valuable for tapping into the rich NLR diversity of wild crop relatives, enabling more rapid development of disease-resistant crops through molecular breeding. As genomic resources continue to expand across plant species, expression-based prediction will play an increasingly central role in unlocking the functional potential of NLR gene family evolution for crop improvement.

The Nucleotide-binding domain and Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) gene family constitutes a cornerstone of the plant innate immune system, encoding intracellular receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses, often through hypersensitive cell death [11]. The evolution of this gene family is characterized by remarkable dynamism, driven by an unending arms race with fast-evolving pathogens. Key evolutionary mechanisms include tandem gene duplication, which leads to the formation of genomic clusters, particularly near telomeric regions, and results in significant expansion of NLR repertoires [11]. This expansion, coupled with intense positive selection pressure acting on specific domains like the Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR), facilitates the continuous generation of new pathogen recognition specificities, enabling plants to adapt to emerging pathogenic threats [11].

However, this very dynamism presents a major bottleneck for research and breeding. Traditional methods for identifying and validating functional NLR genes are notoriously resource-intensive, creating a significant gap between the vast number of NLR sequences identified in genomes and the few with confirmed biological function [49] [50]. This is where high-throughput transformation arrays emerge as a transformative technological pipeline. By integrating advanced bioinformatic selection with scalable genetic engineering and large-scale phenotyping, this approach directly addresses the challenge of functional validation, enabling researchers to efficiently mine the extensive NLR gene pool for new resistance traits and rapidly translate genomic discoveries into crop improvement solutions.

Core Components of the High-Throughput Transformation Pipeline

The high-throughput functional validation pipeline is a multi-stage process that converts a broad pool of candidate NLR genes into a curated list of confirmed resistance genes. Its power lies in the seamless integration of its components, each designed for scale and efficiency.

In Silico Candidate Gene Discovery and Prioritization

The first stage involves bioinformatic filtering to prioritize the most promising NLR candidates from thousands of genomic sequences. A key discovery enabling this prioritization is that functional NLRs consistently exhibit a signature of high constitutive expression in uninfected plants across both monocot and dicot species [49] [50] [9]. In Arabidopsis thaliana, for instance, known functional NLRs are statistically enriched in the top 15% of most highly expressed NLR transcripts, with the most highly expressed NLR in the Col-0 ecotype being the well-characterized ZAR1 gene [50] [9]. This expression signature provides a powerful initial filter.

Additional bioinformatic analyses further refine candidate selection:

• Genome-Wide Identification: Using tools like HMMER and BLASTp with conserved NB-ARC domain models to define the complete NLR repertoire within a genome [11].
• Evolutionary Genomics: Analyzing patterns of gene duplication (tandem vs. segmental) and positive selection to identify rapidly evolving loci likely involved in pathogen recognition [11].
• Promoter Analysis: Identifying cis-regulatory elements in promoter regions (e.g., ~2 kb upstream of the transcription start site) responsive to defense hormones like salicylic acid and jasmonic acid, which can indicate immune-responsive genes [11].

Table 1: Key Tools for In Silico NLR Identification and Analysis

Tool Name	Primary Function	Application in NLR Discovery
HMMER	Profile Hidden Markov Model search	Identifies proteins containing conserved NB-ARC domain (PF00931) [11].
BLAST/ BLASTp	Sequence homology search	Finds NLR homologs using reference NLR protein sequences [11].
InterProScan/ NCBI CDD	Protein domain architecture analysis	Validates presence and completeness of N-terminal (TIR, CC), NBS, and LRR domains [11].
PlantCARE	Cis-regulatory element prediction	Identifies defense-related motifs in promoter regions of NLR genes [11].
NLRSeek	Genome reannotation-based NLR identification	Recovers misannotated or missing NLR genes from genomic sequences, outperforming conventional methods [51].

High-Throughput Transformation and Large-Scale Phenotyping

Following candidate selection, the pipeline moves to experimental validation. The core of this stage is the creation of a transgenic array—a large collection of transgenic lines, each expressing a single candidate NLR gene in a susceptible crop variety.

• Vector Construction and Transformation: This involves cloning each candidate NLR gene into a standardized expression vector, often using its native promoter or a constitutive promoter. High-efficiency transformation protocols are critical. For wheat, a transformation efficiency of approximately 20-30% is achievable using methods like Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation of immature embryos [50]. This enables the generation of a transgenic array comprising hundreds to thousands of independent lines.
• Experimental Scale: A landmark study demonstrated this scale by generating a transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grass species in wheat [49] [50] [9]. This massive effort underscores the "high-throughput" nature of the approach.
• Phenotyping for Resistance: The transgenic array is then systematically challenged with target pathogens under controlled conditions. This large-scale phenotyping identifies lines that confer a resistance phenotype (e.g., absence of disease symptoms or sporulation) compared to the susceptible control. The same study, through this method, identified 31 new resistance genes (19 against stem rust and 12 against leaf rust) from the initial pool of 995 [50] [9].

The workflow below visualizes this integrated, multi-stage pipeline from gene discovery to validated resistance.

A Proof-of-Concept: Identifying Wheat Rust Resistance Genes

A seminal study by Brabham et al. (2025) serves as a powerful proof-of-concept for this pipeline, successfully applying it to discover new resistance genes against two major wheat pathogens: the stem rust pathogen (Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, Pgt) and the leaf rust pathogen (Puccinia triticina, Pt) [49] [50] [9].

The study was grounded in the observation that functional NLRs from barley, Aegilops tauschii, and the model dicot Arabidopsis thaliana were consistently found among the most highly expressed NLR transcripts in uninfected leaves [50] [9]. Leveraging this "high-expression signature," the researchers selected 995 candidate NLR genes from diverse grass species for functional testing.

These 995 candidates were used to generate a transgenic array in the susceptible wheat cultivar 'Fielder' [50] [52]. Large-scale phenotyping of this array involved challenging the transgenic lines with virulent races of Pgt and Pt. This direct in planta assay identified 31 NLRs that conferred resistance, a significant expansion of the genetic resources available to breeders [49] [9]. The success of this workflow demonstrates that expression level is a robust criterion for enriching for functional NLRs prior to the costly and time-consuming step of stable transformation, thereby dramatically increasing the efficiency of resistance gene discovery.

Table 2: Quantitative Outcomes of a High-Throughput NLR Validation Pipeline in Wheat

Pipeline Stage	Metric	Result	Implication
Candidate Selection	NLRs screened based on high-expression signature	995 NLR genes from diverse grasses	Effective bioinformatic pre-filtering [50].
Transgenic Array	Scale of transgenic lines generated	A wheat transgenic array of 995 NLRs	Demonstrates high-throughput capacity [49].
Functional Validation	New stem rust (Pgt) resistance genes identified	19 NLRs	Confirms pipeline effectiveness against a major pathogen [50] [9].
Functional Validation	New leaf rust (Pt) resistance genes identified	12 NLRs	Highlights ability to find resistance against multiple pathogens [50] [9].
Overall Success Rate	Functional NLRs identified from candidate pool	31 out of 995 (~3.1%)	Significant enrichment over random screening [50].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagent Solutions

Implementing a high-throughput transformation pipeline requires a suite of specialized reagents and platforms. The table below details key solutions and their critical functions in the workflow.

Table 3: Research Reagent Solutions for High-Throughput NLR Validation

Reagent / Solution	Critical Function in the Pipeline
HMMER Suite with PF00931 (NB-ARC HMM)	Foundation for genome-wide identification of canonical NLR genes from proteome data [11].
NLRSeek Pipeline	Advanced genome reannotation tool for recovering misannotated and missing NLR genes that are overlooked by standard annotation pipelines [51].
Gateway or Golden Gate Cloning System	Standardized, high-throughput cloning framework for assembling hundreds of NLR gene constructs into uniform expression vectors efficiently.
Stable Expression Vector (e.g., pBract series)	Binary vector for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation; often includes selectable marker (e.g., hygromycin resistance) for plant selection [50].
High-Efficiency Wheat Transformation Protocol	Enabled by optimized Agrobacterium strains and regeneration media for rapid production of transgenic wheat lines [50] [9].
Lupeol-d3	Lupeol-d3, MF:C30H50O, MW:429.7 g/mol
E3 ligase Ligand 31	E3 ligase Ligand 31, MF:C16H17N3O4, MW:315.32 g/mol

Technical Protocols: Key Methodologies for Implementation

This section provides detailed methodologies for the core experimental components cited in the high-throughput validation pipeline.

Genome-Wide Identification and Classification of NLR Genes

Purpose: To comprehensively catalog and classify all NLR genes in a target plant genome [11] [4]. Steps:

• Data Retrieval: Obtain the complete proteome file of the target species.
• HMM Search: Use the HMMER software (e.g., hmmsearch) with the NB-ARC domain model (Pfam: PF00931) against the proteome. Retain sequences with an E-value below a set threshold (e.g., 1 × 10⁻⁵).
• BLASTp Search: Perform a complementary BLASTp search using a set of known reference NLR proteins (e.g., from Arabidopsis thaliana) against the target proteome.
• Sequence Consolidation and Validation: Merge the results from steps 2 and 3, remove duplicates, and validate the presence of the NB-ARC domain using NCBI's Conserved Domain Database (CDD) or InterProScan.
• Domain Architecture Classification: Analyze the validated NLR sequences for N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains using Pfam or a similar database. Classify genes as CNL, TNL, RNL, or truncated variants (e.g., NL).

High-Throughput Wheat Transformation

Purpose: To generate a large array of transgenic wheat lines, each harboring a single candidate NLR gene [50] [52]. Steps:

• Vector Construction: Clone each candidate NLR gene, including its native promoter and terminator sequences, into a binary T-DNA vector suitable for wheat transformation.
• Agrobacterium tumefaciens Preparation: Introduce the binary vector into an Agrobacterium strain such as AGL1.
• Plant Material Preparation: Surface-sterilize immature wheat seeds (cv. 'Fielder') 12-14 days after pollination. Excise the immature embryos aseptically.
• Co-cultivation: Injure the embryos and immerse them in the Agrobacterium suspension for infection. Co-cultivate the embryos on solid medium for 2-3 days in the dark.
• Selection and Regeneration: Transfer the embryos to regeneration media containing antibiotics to select for transformed tissue (e.g., hygromycin) and to suppress Agrobacterium (e.g., timentin). Culture under a 16/8 h light/dark cycle.
• Plantlet Generation: Transfer developing shoots to rooting medium. Once a robust root system is established, transfer plantlets to soil. The reported efficiency for this process in wheat is approximately 20-30% [50].

Integration with Broader Themes in NLR Biology and Evolution

The high-throughput pipeline is not an isolated technique but rather a powerful engine that accelerates discovery within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution. It directly facilitates the study of several key evolutionary concepts:

• Exploring Paired NLRs and Network Complexity: The pipeline can be adapted to test the function of paired NLR genes, which are increasingly recognized as critical for resistance. For example, the transfer of the paired NLRs Yr84-CNL and Yr84-NL from wild emmer wheat into susceptible varieties conferred resistance even without preserving their native head-to-head genomic orientation [53]. High-throughput transformation allows for the systematic validation of such functional pairs and their interactions.

• Understanding Expression and Dosage Sensitivity: The pipeline validates the biological relevance of NLR expression levels. Studies on the barley NLR Mla7 revealed that multiple transgene copies were required for full resistance function, suggesting a threshold level of expression or protein is necessary for effective defense signaling [50] [9]. This challenges the historical paradigm that NLRs must be transcriptionally repressed and highlights dosage as a key functional parameter.

• Uncovering the Impact of Domestication: Comparative genomics often reveals a contraction of the NLR repertoire in domesticated species compared to their wild relatives. For instance, garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) has only 27 NLRs, compared to 63 and 47 in its wild relatives A. setaceus and A. kiusianus, respectively [4]. The high-throughput pipeline provides a direct means to test whether the NLRs lost during domestication include functional resistance genes, thereby identifying valuable genetic resources for re-introduction into elite cultivars.

The diagram below illustrates how NLR gene structure, evolution, and function are interconnected, forming the conceptual foundation that the high-throughput pipeline investigates.

Crop wild relatives (CWRs) represent invaluable reservoirs of genetic diversity for crop improvement, particularly for disease resistance traits. These undomesticated species harbor novel alleles and gene variants that have been lost during domestication bottlenecks or modern breeding cycles. Among the most critical components of plant immunity are nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) genes, which encode intracellular immune receptors that detect pathogen effectors and activate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [54]. NLRs constitute one of the largest and most diversified gene families in plant genomes and are often clustered in complex genomic arrangements that facilitate rapid evolution to counter fast-evolving pathogens [8] [55].

The evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes across plant lineages reveal distinct adaptation strategies. In the Oleaceae family, for instance, the genus Fraxinus (ash trees) demonstrates a predominant strategy of gene conservation, retaining specialized immune responses through conserved NLR genes acquired from an ancient whole genome duplication event (~35 million years ago). In contrast, the genus Olea (olives) has undergone extensive gene expansion driven by recent duplications and birth of novel NLR gene families, enhancing its ability to recognize diverse pathogens [8]. Such evolutionary patterns highlight the potential of mining wild germplasm for both conserved and novel NLR variants to bolster crop resistance.

NLR Gene Family Evolution: Insights from Comparative Genomics

Evolutionary Mechanisms and Genomic Distribution

NLR genes evolve through several key mechanisms that generate diversity in recognition specificities:

• Tandem duplication: The primary driver of NLR family expansion, creating clusters of similar genes that facilitate rapid evolution of new resistance specificities [22]. In pepper (Capsicum annuum), tandem duplication accounts for 18.4% of NLR genes, predominantly on chromosomes 08 and 09 [22].
• Segmental duplication: Large-scale duplication events that distribute NLR copies across different genomic regions.
• Whole genome duplication (WGD): Ancient WGD events, such as the ~35 million-year-old event in Fraxinus, provide raw genetic material for neofunctionalization [8].
• Birth-and-death evolution: Continuous gene duplication and loss maintains a reservoir of diverse NLR alleles within populations.

The genomic distribution of NLR genes is non-random, with significant clustering observed particularly near telomeric regions. In pepper, chromosome 09 harbors the highest NLR density (63 NLRs), suggesting these regions serve as hotspots for rapid NLR evolution [22]. This clustering facilitates unequal crossing-over and recombination, further diversifying NLR repertoires.

Conservation and Divergence Patterns Across Plant Lineages

Table: Comparative Analysis of NLR Family Evolution Across Plant Genera

Genus	Evolutionary Strategy	Key Mechanisms	Genomic Features	Adaptive Significance
Fraxinus (ash trees)	Gene conservation	Retention of ancient WGD-derived NLRs	Conserved NLR clusters	Specialized immune responses with potential energy efficiency [8]
Olea (olives)	Gene expansion	Recent duplications, novel NLR birth	Dynamic NLR clusters	Enhanced pathogen recognition spectrum [8]
Capsicum (pepper)	Tandem duplication	Local gene amplification	Telomeric clustering on Chr09	Rapid adaptation to diverse pathogens [22]
Arabidopsis	Balanced diversity	Various duplication mechanisms	Distributed clusters	Maintenance of recognition capacity while minimizing fitness costs [55]

The PlantNLRatlas dataset, encompassing 68,452 full- and partial-length NLR genes across 100 plant species, provides a comprehensive resource for comparative studies [56]. This collection reveals that NLR groups are generally phyletically clustered, with domain sequences highly conserved within each NLR group, suggesting functional conservation of specific NLR classes across plant taxa.

Mining Wild Relatives: Methodological Framework

Germplasm Collection and Prioritization

Strategic collection and evaluation of CWRs is foundational to successful resistance gene mining. Key considerations include:

• Ecological profiling: Selection of accessions from environments with high pathogen pressure, as these likely experienced strong selection for resistance traits. Environmental variables of collection sites should inform CWR selection [57].
• Phylogenetic relatedness: Prioritization of wild species with close genetic relationships to cultivated crops to facilitate gene introgression, while also considering distantly related species with novel resistance mechanisms.
• Population-level sampling: Collection of multiple accessions per species to capture intraspecific diversity, as demonstrated in the exploration of Phaseolus bean wild relatives from southwestern USA, which identified 18 populations of P. acutifolius alone [58].

Recent explorations in the USA southwestern Sky Island mountains successfully collected novel germplasm of tepary bean (Phaseolus acutifolius) and other wild Phaseolus species, highlighting the continued importance of germplasm expeditions for securing valuable genetic resources [58].

Genomic Approaches for NLR Identification

Table: Bioinformatics Tools for NLR Gene Identification and Annotation

Tool	Methodology	Input Data	Key Features	Considerations
NLRtracker	InterProScan + predefined NLR motifs	Protein or transcript files	Domain architecture based on RefPlantNLR features; extracts NB-ARC for phylogeny [59]	Consistent domain annotation
NLR-Annotator	Motif-based prediction	Unannotated genome sequences	Predicts genomic locations of NLRs	Requires manual annotation of gene models [59]
NLR-Parser	Predefined motifs	Transcript/protein sequences	Classifies sequences as NLRs	Limited to annotated sequences [59]
RGAugury	Homology-based	Genome/proteome data	Identifies various resistance gene analogs beyond NLRs	Broader focus may reduce NLR specificity [56]
OrthoFinder	Phylogenetic orthology	Protein sequences from multiple species	Infers evolutionary relationships; classifies NLR groups	Requires multiple genomes for comparison [56]

The RefPlantNLR dataset serves as an essential reference, containing 481 experimentally validated NLRs from 31 genera of flowering plants [59]. This curated collection defines canonical NLR features and enables benchmarking of annotation tools, with NLRtracker specifically designed to leverage this resource for consistent NLR extraction and annotation.

Association Mapping and Gene Discovery

Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have emerged as powerful approaches for identifying NLR genes associated with resistance traits in diverse germplasm. A GWAS of crenate broomrape (Orobanche crenata) resistance in pea utilized 324 diverse accessions and 26,045 DArTseq markers, identifying 73 marker-trait associations with chromosome 5 as a major hotspot [60]. This approach successfully detected novel resistance sources mainly within wild Pisum fulvum and P. sativum subsp. elatius, highlighting the value of CWRs for resistance breeding.

Figure 1: GWAS workflow for NLR gene discovery in wild germplasm. The process begins with assembling diverse panels, proceeds through high-quality phenotyping and genotyping, and culminates in statistical association analysis and experimental validation of candidate NLR genes.

Experimental Validation of Candidate NLR Genes

Transcriptional Profiling and Expression Analysis

RNA-seq expression analysis provides critical supporting evidence for NLR gene involvement in defense responses. In pepper, transcriptome profiling of Phytophthora capsici-infected resistant and susceptible cultivars identified 44 significantly differentially expressed NLR genes [22]. Similar analyses in olive suggest that even partial NLR genes, despite their incomplete structure, may have significant expression and play important roles in plant immune responses [8].

Protocol for NLR expression analysis:

• Plant material and inoculation: Grow plants under controlled conditions and inoculate with target pathogen using appropriate method (e.g., root dipping for soil-borne pathogens, foliar spray for aerial pathogens). Include mock-inoculated controls.
• Tissue collection and RNA extraction: Harvest tissue at multiple time points post-inoculation (e.g., 0, 6, 12, 24, 48 hours). Preserve tissue in liquid nitrogen. Extract total RNA using validated kits, assessing quality via RNA Integrity Number (RIN >8.0).
• Library preparation and sequencing: Use Illumina platform for high-throughput sequencing. Generate at least 20 million paired-end reads (2×150 bp) per sample.
• Bioinformatic analysis: Map reads to reference genome using HISAT2, quantify gene expression with featureCounts, and identify differentially expressed genes using DESeq2 with thresholds of |log2FoldChange| ≥1 and FDR <0.05.

Functional Characterization Approaches

Several established methods enable functional validation of candidate NLR genes:

• Heterologous expression: Transfer candidate NLRs into susceptible genotypes to test for resistance complementation. This approach can confirm functionality but may be limited by incompatibilities in immune signaling components.
• Virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS): Knock down candidate gene expression in resistant backgrounds to assess whether loss of function increases susceptibility.
• Genetic transformation: Stable transformation followed by pathogen challenge assays provides definitive evidence of gene function.
• Protein-protein interaction studies: Identify interacting partners using yeast two-hybrid screening or co-immunoprecipitation to elucidate NLR function within immune networks.

In the pea-Orobanche system, researchers have employed detailed phenotyping protocols to assess resistance mechanisms, including evaluation of infection sites using mini-rhizotron systems and histological analysis of parasite penetration and development [60].

Regulatory Mechanisms and Balancing Fitness Costs

Multi-Layered NLR Regulation

NLR-mediated immunity provides robust pathogen resistance but can incur fitness costs through autoimmunity or resource allocation, necessitating precise regulatory mechanisms [55]. These costs are illustrated by fitness compromises observed for several R genes in the absence of disease, including Rpm1 and PigmR [55].

Figure 2: Multi-layered regulatory network maintaining NLR equilibrium. Transcriptional, post-transcriptional, and protein-level controls maintain NLRs in an ON/OFF equilibrium state in the absence of pathogens, preventing fitness costs while enabling rapid activation upon pathogen perception.

Epigenetic Controls of NLR Expression

Epigenetic mechanisms fine-tune NLR gene expression through:

• Histone modifications: Tri-methylation of lysine 4 of histone 3 (H3K4me3) and di-/tri-methylation of H3K36 activate NLR expression, with histone lysine methyltransferases like ATXR7 and SDG8 serving as positive regulators [55].
• DNA methylation: Promoter methylation typically represses NLR expression, while gene body methylation (gbM) may fine-tune expression levels. Dynamic changes in DNA methylation during biotic stress enable rapid NLR induction when needed [55].
• Chromatin remodeling: Changes in chromatin structure influence NLR accessibility and expression, with repressive marks like H3K9me2 on transposable elements impacting nearby NLR genes.

In common bean, genome-wide methylome analysis revealed that more than half of NLR genes are methylated in their transcribed region, resembling TE-like-methylated (teM) genes, suggesting this may be a conserved mechanism for maintaining low basal NLR expression in the absence of pathogens [55].

Table: Key Research Reagents and Resources for NLR Gene Discovery and Validation

Resource Type	Specific Examples	Application	Key Features
Reference Datasets	RefPlantNLR (481 experimentally validated NLRs) [59]; PlantNLRatlas (68,452 NLRs across 100 species) [56]	Benchmarking, phylogenetic analysis, domain annotation	Curated collections with standardized annotations
Genomic Resources	High-quality reference genomes (e.g., pepper 'Zhangshugang', Fraxinus pennsylvanica) [22] [8]	NLR identification, synteny analysis, evolutionary studies	Chromosome-level assemblies essential for clustered gene families
Germplasm Collections	Wild Pisum accessions; Phaseolus wild relatives from southwestern USA [60] [58]	Association mapping, allele mining	Geographically and ecologically diverse sources of novel variation
Bioinformatics Tools	NLRtracker, NLR-Annotator, OrthoFinder, MCScanX [59] [56] [22]	NLR extraction, phylogenetic analysis, synteny mapping	Specialized for handling diverse and complex NLR gene families
Expression Resources	RNA-seq datasets (e.g., chitin/flg22-treated wheat, P. capsici-infected pepper) [22] [56]	Expression profiling, co-expression analysis	Condition-specific data revealing NLR induction patterns

Mining undomesticated germplasm for novel NLR genes represents a powerful strategy for enhancing crop disease resistance. The evolutionary dynamics of the NLR family—including conservation, expansion, and regulatory mechanisms—provide a framework for guiding gene discovery efforts. Future work should prioritize:

• Expanding genomic resources for underrepresented CWRs to capture the full diversity of NLR repertoires
• Integrating multi-omics data to connect NLR sequence variation with function and regulation
• Leveraging gene editing technologies to accelerate functional validation and introgression of valuable NLR alleles
• Developing predictive models of NLR-effector interactions to enable rational design of resistance genes

As climate change and emerging pathogens continue to threaten global food security, the strategic utilization of crop wild relatives and their NLR genes will be increasingly crucial for developing durable disease resistance in agricultural crops.

Gene Stacking and Pyramiding Strategies for Durable Disease Resistance

Plant pathogens and their hosts are engaged in a constant evolutionary arms race, compelling the development of sophisticated breeding strategies to achieve durable disease resistance. The foundation of this battle lies in the plant immune system, where Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) proteins serve as critical intracellular receptors that trigger defense responses upon pathogen recognition [61]. These NLR genes represent the most variable gene family in plants, a diversity driven by relentless pathogen pressure [4]. However, as evidenced in asparagus domestication, genome reduction and NLR contraction can occur during artificial selection, potentially compromising disease resistance in favor of yield and quality traits [4]. This vulnerability underscores the necessity for gene pyramiding – a strategic breeding approach that combines multiple resistance genes into a single genotype to create more robust and durable resistance [62] [63]. By stacking complementary resistance mechanisms, pyramiding mitigates the risk of pathogen adaptation that often nullifies single-gene resistance, providing a sustainable solution for crop protection in modern agriculture.

NLR Gene Family: The Evolutionary Foundation of Plant Immunity

NLR Structure, Classification, and Genomic Organization

NLR proteins function as essential surveillance modules in plant immunity, characterized by a conserved tripartite domain architecture: an N-terminal signaling domain, a central Nucleotide-Binding (NB-ARC) domain, and a C-terminal Leucine-Rich Repeat (LRR) region [4] [61]. Based on their N-terminal domains, NLRs are classified into distinct subfamilies: CNLs (containing Coiled-Coil domains), TNLs (containing Toll/Interleukin-1 Receptor domains), and RNLs (featuring RPW8 domains) [4]. The central NB-ARC domain contains critical conserved motifs, including the P-loop, GLPL, MHD, and Kinase 2, which are essential for nucleotide binding and ATPase activity [4]. The C-terminal LRR region is responsible for effector recognition and protein-protein interactions, exhibiting hypervariability that enables adaptation to evolving pathogen effectors [11].

NLR genes display distinctive genomic organization patterns, predominantly distributed in clustered arrangements across chromosomes [4] [11]. This clustering facilitates rapid evolution of new resistance specificities through mechanisms such as tandem duplication, segmental duplication, and gene conversion [11]. For example, in pepper (Capsicum annuum), chromosomal distribution analysis revealed significant NLR clustering, particularly near telomeric regions, with chromosome 09 harboring the highest density (63 NLRs) [11]. Evolutionary analysis demonstrated that tandem duplication serves as the primary driver of NLR family expansion in pepper, accounting for 18.4% of NLR genes (53/288), predominantly on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11].

Evolutionary Dynamics and Domestication Impact on NLR Repertoires

Comparative genomic analyses reveal striking variability in NLR gene family size across plant species, reflecting differential evolutionary pressures and domestication histories. Studies in asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) demonstrate a marked contraction of NLR genes from wild relatives to domesticated varieties, with gene counts of 63, 47, and 27 NLRs identified in A. setaceus, A. kiusianus, and domesticated A. officinalis, respectively [4]. This reduction suggests that artificial selection for agronomic traits during domestication may have inadvertently compromised the immune repertoire. Pathogen inoculation assays confirmed distinct phenotypic responses: domesticated A. officinalis was susceptible, while A. setaceus remained asymptomatic [4]. Notably, the majority of preserved NLR genes in domesticated asparagus demonstrated either unchanged or downregulated expression following fungal challenge, indicating potential functional impairment in disease resistance mechanisms as a consequence of selection favoring yield and quality [4].

Table 1: NLR Gene Family Size Variation Across Plant Species

Species	NLR Count	Genomic Features	Evolutionary Notes
Garden Asparagus (A. officinalis)	27	Chromosomal clustering	Domesticated; contracted repertoire [4]
Wild Asparagus (A. setaceus)	63	Chromosomal clustering	Wild relative; expanded repertoire [4]
Pepper (C. annuum)	288	High density on Chr09 (63 NLRs)	Tandem duplication-driven expansion [11]
Arabidopsis (A. thaliana)	~150	Distributed clusters	Model system for NLR studies [61]
Wheat (T. aestivum)	>1,500	Extensive clusters	Large genome with high NLR diversity [61]

Gene Pyramiding: Strategic Approaches and Methodologies

Conceptual Framework and Objectives

Gene pyramiding represents a sophisticated breeding strategy designed to accumulate multiple favorable genes from different parents into an ideal genotype [63]. This approach is particularly valuable for addressing the limitations of single-gene resistance, which pathogens can rapidly overcome through mutation and selection. The primary objectives of gene pyramiding include: (1) enhancing trait performance through complementary gene action; (2) introgression of novel resistance genes from diverse genetic sources; (3) achieving durable and broad-spectrum resistance to multiple pathogen races or strains; and (4) increasing genetic diversity in cultivated varieties while preserving elite genetic backgrounds [63].

The strategic value of pyramiding is particularly evident when addressing rapidly evolving pathogens. For example, in rice, stacking multiple bacterial blight resistance genes (xa5, xa13, and Xa21) with blast resistance gene (Pi54) and sheath blight QTLs (qSBR7-1, qSBR11-1, and qSBR11-2) provided comprehensive protection against multiple diseases that commonly co-occur in agricultural settings [64]. This multi-layered defense approach ensures that even if a pathogen evolves to overcome one resistance mechanism, other stacked genes maintain protection, significantly extending the functional lifespan of resistance traits in commercial varieties.

Conventional Breeding Approaches

Traditional gene pyramiding methods rely on phenotypic selection and controlled crossing schemes, with several established approaches:

• Pedigree Breeding: This method involves maintaining detailed records of parent-offspring relationships through multiple generations, allowing breeders to select individuals with desired gene combinations based on ancestry and performance. While effective, this approach requires extensive record-keeping and multiple generations to achieve homozygous lines [65].

• Backcross Breeding: The most efficient conventional method, backcross breeding involves repeated crosses of hybrid progeny (F1 or subsequent generations) with one parental line (the recurrent parent) to transfer specific traits while recovering the genetic background of the recurrent parent [65] [63]. Conventional backcrossing typically requires six to eight generations to recover 99.2% of the recurrent parent genome and eliminate linkage drag [63].

• Recurrent Selection: This approach involves repeated cycles of selection and intercrossing among superior individuals to accumulate favorable alleles over multiple generations. While effective for quantitative traits, recurrent selection requires more time than pedigree or backcross methods [65].

Table 2: Comparison of Conventional Gene Pyramiding Methods

Method	Key Features	Generations to Homozygosity	Advantages	Limitations
Pedigree Breeding	Detailed ancestry tracking, selection each generation	6-8	Maintains genetic diversity, effective selection	Time-consuming, extensive record-keeping
Backcross Breeding	Repeated crossing to recurrent parent	6-8 (99.2% RPG)	Preserves elite background, targeted improvement	Limited genetic diversity, linkage drag
Recurrent Selection	Cyclic selection and intercrossing	Variable (multiple cycles)	Accumulates multiple QTLs, population improvement	Long-term process, complex management

Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) and Advanced Pyramiding Protocols

Molecular marker technology has revolutionized gene pyramiding by enabling precise selection based on genotype rather than phenotype. Marker-Assisted Selection (MAS) allows breeders to identify plants carrying desired gene combinations at early growth stages, significantly accelerating the breeding process [63] [66]. The MAS-based pyramiding approach involves two critical selection steps:

• Foreground Selection: Using molecular markers tightly linked to or located within target genes to select individuals carrying the desired alleles [67].
• Background Selection: Employing genome-wide markers to select individuals with the highest recovery of the recurrent parent genome (RPG), rapidly restoring the elite genetic background [67].

The superiority of MAS-based pyramiding is evident in direct comparisons with conventional methods. While traditional backcrossing requires at least six generations to recover 99.2% of the recurrent parent genome, MAS can achieve equivalent results in just two to three generations through strategic background selection [63]. This represents a 50-66% reduction in the time required to develop improved varieties.

A exemplary implementation of this approach demonstrated successful pyramiding of four blast resistance genes (Piz, Pib, Pita, and Pik) in the Italian rice cultivar Vialone Nano [67]. Molecular analysis revealed the presence of an additional linked resistance gene (Pita2/Ptr), effectively stacking five resistance genes. The developed lines achieved up to 95.65% recovery of the recurrent parent genome and exhibited broad-spectrum resistance against multivirulent blast strains [67].

Technical Implementation: Experimental Design and Protocols

Population Size Determination and Selection Strategy

A critical consideration in gene pyramiding is determining the minimum population size required to have a high probability of recovering the desired genotype. The population size depends on the number of target genes, their genomic locations (linked or unlinked), and the desired probability of success. The following equation calculates the minimum population size needed [66]:

N = logâ‚‘(1-P)/logâ‚‘(1-f)

Where:

• N = minimum population size
• P = desired probability of success (e.g., 99%, 95%)
• f = frequency of the target genotype

For unlinked genes, the frequency (f) is calculated as (0.25)ⁿ, where n is the number of genes. To combine two unlinked genes with 99% probability, the calculation would be: f = (0.25 × 0.25) = 0.0625 N = logₑ(1-0.99)/logₑ(1-0.0625) = 71.86 → 72 individuals

For linked genes, the frequency depends on the recombination distance between genes. For example, genes located 37 cM apart require screening 133 individuals for 99% success probability [66].

Molecular Marker Development and Validation

Effective marker-assisted pyramiding requires robust, gene-specific molecular markers. The development process typically involves:

• Candidate Gene Identification: Using reference genomes and known R gene sequences to identify target loci.
• Sequence Polymorphism Discovery: Comparing sequences between resistant and susceptible genotypes to identify diagnostic polymorphisms (SNPs, indels, presence/absence variations).
• Marker Design: Developing PCR-based markers (KASP, CAPS, SCAR) that distinguish alleles based on identified polymorphisms.
• Marker Validation: Testing markers on diverse germplasm to confirm linkage with the target trait and ensure reliability across genetic backgrounds.

In the rice blast resistance pyramiding study [67], researchers developed both dominant and co-dominant markers for the Pik locus. Sequencing of the Pik1 gene (LOC_Os11g46200) in donor and recipient lines enabled development of a dominant presence/absence marker, while sequencing of the closely linked Pik2 gene (LOC_Os11g46210) revealed a [G/A] SNP that allowed development of a co-dominant marker for precise selection [67].

Step-by-Step Protocol for Marker-Assisted Pyramiding

The following protocol outlines the complete process for pyramiding multiple disease resistance genes, based on successful implementations in rice [64] [67] and wheat [68]:

• Parental Selection and Initial Crosses

  • Select recurrent parent (elite cultivar) and donor parents containing target resistance genes.
  • Conduct pairwise crosses between donors if multiple genes are in different parents.
  • Generate F1 hybrids and confirm heterozygosity at target loci using gene-specific markers.

• Backcrossing and Foreground Selection

  • Cross confirmed F1 plants with the recurrent parent to generate BC1F1 population.
  • Screen BC1F1 plants with foreground markers to identify individuals carrying all target genes.
  • Select positive plants with the highest number of target genes for further backcrossing.

• Background Selection

  • Genotype selected BC1F1 plants using genome-wide markers (SSRs, SNPs).
  • Calculate recurrent parent genome (RPG) recovery percentage for each plant.
  • Select plants with highest RPG percentage for subsequent backcrossing.

• Iterative Backcrossing

  • Repeat backcrossing for 2-3 generations (BC2F1 to BC3F1) with simultaneous foreground and background selection.
  • Monitor RPG recovery, aiming for >90% by BC2F1 and >95% by BC3F1.

• Selfing and Homozygosity Achievement

  • Self-pollinate selected BC3F1 plants to generate BC3F2 population.
  • Screen BC3F2 plants with foreground markers to identify homozygous individuals.
  • Confirm homozygosity and RPG percentage in selected lines.

• Phenotypic Validation

  • Evaluate pyramided lines for disease resistance against target pathogens.
  • Assess agronomic performance and morphological characteristics relative to the recurrent parent.
  • Select superior lines for advanced testing and variety release.

Case Studies: Successful Implementation Across Crop Species

Multiple Disease Resistance in Rice

A comprehensive pyramiding effort successfully combined seven resistance genes/QTLs against three major rice diseases: bacterial blight (BB), blast, and sheath blight [64]. Researchers used marker-assisted backcross breeding (MABB) to introgress three BB resistance genes (xa5, xa13, and Xa21) from donor IRBB60 into elite cultivars ASD 16 and ADT 43. Subsequently, these pyramided lines were crossed with donor Tetep to combine blast resistance gene (Pi54) and three sheath blight QTLs (qSBR7-1, qSBR11-1, and qSBR11-2) [64].

The resulting homozygous lines (BC₃F₃ generation) carrying all seven genes/QTLs exhibited high resistance to all three diseases under greenhouse conditions while maintaining the agronomic characteristics of the recurrent parents [64]. This achievement demonstrates the potential of gene pyramiding to address multiple disease constraints simultaneously, providing farmers with resilient varieties that require fewer chemical inputs.

Blast Resistance Gene Stacking in Japonica Rice

In another sophisticated pyramiding program, researchers stacked four blast resistance genes (Piz, Pib, Pita, and Pik) into the susceptible Italian japonica variety Vialone Nano [67]. Using KASP marker assays for foreground and background selection, the team developed lines with up to 95.65% recovery of the recurrent parent genome. Molecular characterization revealed the unexpected presence of an additional resistance gene (Pita2/Ptr) linked to Pita, effectively creating five-gene pyramids [67].

Phenotypic evaluation demonstrated that the pyramided lines exhibited resistance patterns broader than expected based on the individual gene specificities, suggesting synergistic interactions among the stacked genes [67]. This highlights an additional benefit of pyramiding – the potential for emergent resistance properties not predictable from individual gene effects.

Multiple Trait Improvement in Wheat

Beyond disease resistance, pyramiding has been successfully applied to combine multiple trait improvements in wheat [68]. Researchers pyramided the yellow rust resistance gene (Yr26), powdery mildew resistance genes (Ml91260-1 and Ml91260-2), and high-molecular-weight glutenin subunits (Dx5 + Dy10) into the dwarf mutant of elite cultivar Xiaoyan22 [68]. Through molecular marker-assisted selection and field evaluation, six improved pyramided lines were developed with enhanced disease resistance, improved grain quality, and higher yield potential compared to the original cultivar [68].

Table 3: Gene Pyramiding Outcomes in Major Crop Species

Crop	Target Genes	Donor Sources	Recurrent Parent	Key Outcomes
Rice	xa5, xa13, Xa21, Pi54, qSBR7-1, qSBR11-1, qSBR11-2	IRBB60, Tetep	ASD 16, ADT 43	Multiple disease resistance; 9-15 improved lines per background [64]
Rice	Piz, Pib, Pita, Pik, Pita2/Ptr	SJKK pyramided line	Vialone Nano	Up to 95.65% RPG; broad-spectrum blast resistance [67]
Wheat	Yr26, Ml91260-1, Ml91260-2, Dx5+Dy10	92R137, 91260, ZhengNong16	Xiaoyan22 dwarf mutant	Six pyramided lines with improved resistance and quality [68]
Asparagus	NLR genes from wild relatives	A. setaceus, A. kiusianus	A. officinalis	16 conserved NLR pairs identified for potential pyramiding [4]

Successful implementation of gene pyramiding programs requires specialized research reagents and genomic resources. The following toolkit summarizes essential materials referenced across successful pyramiding studies:

Table 4: Essential Research Reagents for Gene Pyramiding Programs

Reagent/Resource	Specification/Function	Application Examples
Gene-Specific Markers	KASP, CAPS, SCAR, SSR markers flanking or within target genes	Pib5f/r for Pib selection; pTA248 for Xa21 [64] [67]
Genome-Wide Markers	SSR or SNP sets distributed across all chromosomes	Background selection for recurrent parent genome recovery [67] [68]
Reference Genomes	High-quality genome assemblies and annotations	Asparagus genomes for NLR identification [4]; Pepper 'Zhangshugang' genome [11]
HMM Profiles	PF00931 (NB-ARC domain) for NLR identification	Genome-wide NLR annotation in asparagus and pepper [4] [11]
Pathogen Isolates	Characterized strains with known virulence spectra	Phenotypic validation of pyramided lines [64] [67]
Expression Vectors	Binary vectors for genetic transformation	Transgenic pyramiding approaches [62]

Gene pyramiding represents a powerful strategy for developing durable disease resistance in crops, particularly when informed by evolutionary insights from NLR gene family research. The integration of molecular marker technologies with conventional breeding has dramatically accelerated the ability to stack multiple resistance genes while preserving elite genetic backgrounds. Future pyramiding efforts will benefit from emerging technologies such as gene editing for precise NLR modification, pan-genome analyses to identify novel resistance alleles from wild relatives, and advanced genomic selection methods to efficiently combine quantitative resistance loci with major NLR genes [62].

The evolutionary perspective provided by NLR research underscores the importance of maintaining genetic diversity in resistance gene repertoires, as demonstrated by the negative consequences of NLR contraction during domestication [4]. By applying gene pyramiding strategies informed by NLR evolution, breeders can create more resilient crop varieties with broad-spectrum, durable disease resistance – a critical component for sustainable agricultural production in the face of evolving pathogen threats.

The evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens has driven the diversification of intracellular immune receptors, particularly the nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) family. These proteins serve as key executors of effector-triggered immunity (ETI), conferring specific resistance against diverse pathogens [69]. Traditionally, transferring functional NLR genes between distantly related plant species has presented significant challenges, often resulting in non-functional receptors or fitness costs. However, recent breakthroughs demonstrate that co-transferring paired sensor-helper NLRs can overcome these taxonomic barriers, enabling effective disease resistance across plant families [70]. This whitepaper examines the mechanistic basis, experimental evidence, and practical applications of cross-species NLR pair transfer, framing this advancement within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution and its implications for crop improvement.

NLR Gene Family Evolution and Immune Signaling Networks

Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Repertoires

Plant genomes encode highly variable numbers of NLR genes, reflecting perpetual co-evolution with pathogens. Comparative genomic analyses reveal that NLRs represent one of the most dynamic gene families in plants, with counts ranging from several dozen in some species to over a thousand in others [4] [11]. This expansion occurs primarily through tandem duplication events, which facilitate rapid generation of new resistance specificities [11]. For example, in pepper (Capsicum annuum), 18.4% of NLR genes (53 out of 288) arose through recent tandem duplications, particularly concentrated on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11].

The evolutionary trajectory of NLR repertoires is characterized by concerted expansion and contraction with other immune receptor families. Across 350 plant species, a strong positive correlation exists between the percentages of NLRs (%NB-ARC) and specific pattern recognition receptor (PRR) families, particularly LRR-receptor-like proteins (%LRR-RLPs) and LRR-receptor-like kinases from subgroup XII (%LRR-RLK-XII) [71]. This co-expansion suggests functional interdependence between pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) pathways, despite their traditional separation [71].

Domestication has significantly influenced NLR repertoire evolution, often resulting in substantial gene loss in cultivated varieties. In asparagus, a dramatic contraction occurred from wild relatives to domesticated garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis), with NLR counts decreasing from 63 in A. setaceus and 47 in A. kiusianus to just 27 in cultivated A. officinalis [4]. This reduction, coupled with inconsistent induction of retained NLRs after pathogen challenge, likely contributes to increased disease susceptibility in domesticated lines [4].

NLR Classification and Signaling Mechanisms

NLR proteins exhibit a characteristic modular structure comprising:

• An N-terminal domain (TIR, CC, or RPW8) that mediates signaling
• A central nucleotide-binding (NB-ARC) domain that acts as a molecular switch
• A C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) region involved in effector recognition [54]

Based on their N-terminal domains, NLRs are classified into three major subfamilies: CNLs (containing coiled-coil domains), TNLs (with Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domains), and RNLs (featuring RPW8 domains) [4]. Recent structural studies have revealed that NLRs assemble into oligomeric complexes called "resistosomes" upon activation. CNL resistosomes, such as ZAR1 and Sr35, form calcium-permeable channels [54], while TNL resistosomes function as NADases that generate signaling molecules, which are subsequently sensed by EDS1–PAD4 or EDS1–SAG101 complexes [54]. These complexes then activate helper NLRs (ADR1s and NRG1s) to mediate defense signaling and cell death [54].

Table 1: Major NLR Subfamilies and Their Characteristics

Subfamily	N-terminal Domain	Representative Members	Signaling Mechanism	Distribution
CNL	Coiled-coil (CC)	ZAR1, Sr35	Forms calcium-permeable channels	All angiosperms
TNL	TIR	RPP1, RPS4	NADase activity producing signaling molecules	Primarily dicots
RNL	RPW8	ADR1, NRG1	Acts as helper NLRs	All angiosperms

Sensor-Helper NLR Pairs: Breaking Taxonomic Barriers

The Paradigm of Functional NLR Pairing

A significant advancement in plant immunity research has been the recognition that many NLRs function not as solitary receptors but as integrated sensor-helper pairs or within more complex immune networks [53]. In this paradigm, "sensor" NLRs (typically diverse CNLs or TNLs) perform pathogen recognition, while "helper" NLRs (often more conserved RNLs or specific CNLs) transduce immune signals to execute defense responses [53] [69].

The functional interdependence between sensor and helper NLRs creates a potential bottleneck for cross-species transfer. Individual sensor NLRs transferred to non-native species often lack compatible helper NLRs, rendering them non-functional. However, recent research demonstrates that co-transferring matched sensor-helper pairs can overcome this limitation, enabling resistance functionality across distant taxonomic boundaries [70].

Experimental Evidence for Cross-Family Transfer

Groundbreaking research by Du et al. (2025) demonstrated that transferring paired sensor-helper NLRs from Solanaceae species (pepper) into distantly related non-asterid species, including rice (monocot), soybean (eudicot), and Arabidopsis, conferred effective resistance to bacterial leaf streak without apparent fitness costs [70]. This finding indicates that the core signaling machinery underlying NLR-mediated immunity is sufficiently conserved across angiosperms to support cross-family functionality when complete NLR units are transferred.

Additional evidence comes from studies of wheat NLR pairs, where the head-to-head orientation often observed in native genomic contexts was found not essential for functionality when transferred to susceptible varieties [53]. This organizational flexibility simplifies transgenic approaches for crop improvement, as precise reconstruction of native genomic architecture is unnecessary.

Experimental Framework for Cross-Species NLR Transfer

Workflow for Identifying and Validating Functional NLR Pairs

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive experimental workflow for identifying, testing, and transferring functional NLR pairs across species boundaries:

Key Methodologies and Protocols

Genome-Wide NLR Identification and Characterization

Identification Pipeline:

• Perform HMMER searches using the conserved NB-ARC domain (PF00931) against the target proteome with an E-value cutoff of 1×10⁻⁵ [11]
• Conduct complementary BLASTp analyses against reference NLR proteins from model species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) using stringent E-value thresholds (1e-10) [4]
• Validate candidate sequences through domain architecture analysis using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search to confirm presence of complete NB-ARC domains (E-value ≤ 1e-5) [4]
• Classify NLRs into subfamilies (CNL, TNL, RNL) based on N-terminal domains by querying Pfam and PRGdb 4.0 databases [4]

Evolutionary Analysis:

• Identify tandem duplication events using MCScanX with default parameters [11]
• Analyze syntenic relationships between NLRs across related species using Dual Synteny Plotter in TBtools [11]
• Construct phylogenetic trees from NB-ARC domain alignments using Maximum Likelihood method in IQ-TREE with 1000 bootstrap replicates [4] [11]

Expression-Based Functional NLR Discovery

Recent evidence indicates that functional NLRs often display characteristic high expression in uninfected plants, providing a valuable screening criterion [9]. This approach has been successfully applied across monocot and dicot species:

Table 2: Expression-Based Identification of Functional NLRs

Species	Functional NLR	Pathogen Target	Expression Signature	Validation Method
Barley (Hordeum vulgare)	Mla7	Blumeria hordei (powdery mildew)	High expression in uninfected leaves; requires multiple copies for full resistance	Transgenic complementation with copy number variation [9]
Arabidopsis (A. thaliana)	ZAR1	Multiple bacterial pathogens	Most highly expressed NLR in ecotype Col-0	Known functional characterization correlates with high expression [9]
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)	Mi-1	Potato aphid, whitefly, root-knot nematode	High expression in leaves and roots of resistant cultivars	Correlation with known resistance function [9]
Pepper (Capsicum annuum)	Rpi-amr1	Phytophthora capsici	Highly expressed NLR transcript	Functional dependence on NRC helper NLRs [9]

Protocol for Expression-Based Screening:

• Extract RNA from multiple tissue types relevant to pathogen infection (leaves, roots, etc.)
• Sequence transcripts and calculate expression values (FPKM or TPM) for all NLR genes
• Prioritize candidates in the top 15% of expressed NLRs based on steady-state levels [9]
• Validate expression patterns through RT-qPCR across developmental stages and tissue types

High-Throughput Transformation and Functional Validation

Large-Scale Transformation Array:

• Clone candidate NLR genes into binary vectors under native or constitutive promoters
• Implement high-efficiency transformation systems (e.g., wheat transformation achieving 70-90% efficiency) [9]
• Generate transgenic arrays containing hundreds to thousands of individual NLR constructs
• For NLR pairs, clone sensor and helper genes together in a single vector or co-transform with separate vectors

Phenotyping Pipeline:

• Inoculate transgenic lines with target pathogens under controlled conditions
• Implement large-scale phenotyping for disease resistance symptoms
• Assess potential fitness costs through growth measurements and yield parameters
• Evaluate race specificity using multiple pathogen isolates

This approach has successfully identified 31 new resistance NLRs in wheat (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) from a transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grass species [9].

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for NLR Transfer Studies

Reagent / Tool Category	Specific Examples	Function / Application	Technical Considerations
Bioinformatics Tools	HMMER v3.3.2, InterProScan, NCBI CD-Search, PlantCARE	NLR identification, domain analysis, promoter cis-element prediction	Use E-value cutoff 1e-5 for NB-ARC domain; analyze 2kb upstream for cis-elements [4] [11]
Genome Databases	PRGdb 4.0, Phytozome, PlantGARDEN, Dryad Digital Repository	Source of genomic data and annotated NLR genes	Prioritize high-quality reference genomes with BUSCO completeness >97% [4]
Vector Systems	Gateway-compatible binary vectors, modular NLR cloning systems	Stacking multiple NLR genes, expressing sensor-helper pairs	Include tissue-specific or constitutive promoters based on target pathogen [9]
Transformation Systems	Agrobacterium-mediated transformation, biolistics	High-throughput plant transformation	Wheat transformation efficiency critical for large-scale screening [9]
Pathogen Stocks	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, Phytophthora capsici, Xanthomonas species	Phenotypic screening of NLR function	Maintain multiple isolates with different effector profiles
Expression Analysis Platforms	RNA-seq, RT-qPCR systems	Expression profiling of NLR candidates	Focus on uninfected tissue; multiple developmental stages [9]
Sitneprotafib	Sitneprotafib, CAS:2245082-05-5, MF:C21H22ClN7S, MW:440.0 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals
Biotin-PEG4-OH	Biotin-PEG4-OH, MF:C18H33N3O6S, MW:419.5 g/mol	Chemical Reagent	Bench Chemicals

Discussion and Future Perspectives

The ability to transfer functional NLR pairs across taxonomic families represents a paradigm shift in plant disease resistance breeding. This approach overcomes evolutionary barriers that have traditionally limited the utilization of resistance genes from wild relatives in crop improvement programs. The finding that paired sensor-helper NLRs can function in distant plant families suggests that downstream signaling components are sufficiently conserved across angiosperms to support cross-family immunity [70].

From an evolutionary perspective, successful cross-species transfer aligns with evidence showing concerted evolution between different classes of immune receptors. The strong correlation between NLRs and specific PRR families across plant genomes [71] indicates integrated immune networks rather than isolated signaling pathways. This integration may explain why complete NLR units (sensor-helper pairs), which presumably engage conserved signaling hubs, maintain functionality across species boundaries.

Important considerations for implementing this strategy include:

• Potential fitness costs associated with introduced NLRs must be carefully evaluated across environments
• Durability of resistance provided by transferred NLR pairs requires long-term assessment
• Regulatory frameworks for transgenic approaches incorporating NLR pairs from distant species
• Stacking strategies to combine multiple NLR pairs for broader-spectrum and more durable resistance

Future research directions should focus on:

• Elucidating the structural determinants of sensor-helper compatibility
• Developing predictive models for identifying functional NLR pairs without extensive screening
• Exploring the transferability limits across deeper phylogenetic divides
• Engineering optimized helper NLRs with broad compatibility across sensor types

Cross-species transfer of NLR pairs represents a transformative approach for crop protection that leverages natural plant immunity while overcoming evolutionary constraints. By co-transferring matched sensor-helper NLRs, researchers have successfully extended immune receptor functionality across plant families, opening vast genetic resources for crop improvement. This strategy, combined with high-throughput identification methods and functional screening platforms, significantly accelerates the discovery and deployment of disease resistance genes. As climate change and global trade intensify disease pressures on agricultural systems, harnessing the full diversity of NLR genes through cross-species transfer offers a promising path toward sustainable crop protection and food security.

Balancing Immunity and Fitness: Overcoming Hurdles in NLR Research and Application

The NLR (NOD-like receptor) gene family represents one of the largest and most diverse gene families in plants, serving as critical intracellular immune receptors that detect pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses [72] [1]. This gene family exhibits extraordinary sequence, structural, and regulatory variability as a result of the continuous evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens [18]. However, this diversification comes with significant risk: dysregulation or overexpression of NLR genes can induce an autoimmunity state that severely impacts plant growth, development, and yield [72]. This creates what we term the "autoimmunity dilemma" – how can plants maintain a highly diverse, rapidly evolving immune repertoire capable of recognizing rapidly evolving pathogens while simultaneously preventing detrimental self-activation? The solution lies in a sophisticated array of regulatory mechanisms that tightly control NLR expression and activity, representing an evolutionary compromise between robust immunity and organismal fitness.

The evolutionary context of this dilemma is fundamental to understanding NLR regulation. Plant NLRs have independently arisen through convergent evolution with animal NLRs, despite their similar biological functions and protein architecture [34]. Comparative genome-wide analyses reveal that plant and animal NLRs likely emerged from independent fusion events between ancestral nucleotide-binding domains and LRR domains early in the evolution of multicellularity [34]. In flowering plants, NLR families have undergone massive expansions, with numbers ranging from approximately 50 in papaya to over 1,000 in apple and hexaploid wheat [1] [61]. This tremendous diversity, driven primarily by tandem duplication and positive selection, necessitates equally sophisticated regulatory mechanisms to maintain immune homeostasis [11].

NLR Structure, Function, and Evolution: Foundations for Regulation

Architectural Principles of NLR Proteins

NLR proteins function as sophisticated molecular switches within plant cells, operating through conserved structural principles. They typically contain a tripartite domain architecture consisting of an N-terminal signaling domain, a central nucleotide-binding and oligomerization domain (NOD), and C-terminal superstructure-forming repeats (SSFRs) [1]. The central NOD in plant NLRs is exclusively an NB-ARC domain (nucleotide-binding adaptor shared by APAF-1, certain R gene products, and CED-4), which functions as a molecular switch by cycling between ADP-bound (inactive) and ATP-bound (active) states [1]. The C-terminal SSFRs are typically leucine-rich repeat (LRR) domains that often mediate pathogen recognition and maintain autoinhibition [1].

Plant NLRs are broadly classified based on their N-terminal domains, which largely determine their signaling properties:

• Coiled-coil (CC)-type NLRs (CNLs)
• Toll/interleukin-1 receptor-type NLRs (TNLs)
• RPW8-type NLRs (CCR)
• G10-type CC NLRs (CCG10) [1]

This classification follows the phylogeny of the NB-ARC domain, indicating a deep evolutionary origin for these distinct NLR classes [1]. Recent structural studies have revealed that despite this common architecture, NLRs exhibit significant structural diversity, including noncanonical domains and degenerated features that contribute to functional specialization [1].

Evolutionary Dynamics of the NLR Family

The NLR gene family exhibits remarkable evolutionary dynamics driven by host-pathogen coevolution. Tandem duplication has been identified as the primary driver of NLR family expansion and diversification [11]. For example, in pepper (Capsicum annuum), tandem duplication accounts for 18.4% of NLR genes (53 of 288), with particularly high density on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11]. This pattern of localized amplification enables rapid generation of new resistance alleles through domain shuffling and neofunctionalization.

Table 1: Evolutionary Mechanisms Generating NLR Diversity

Evolutionary Mechanism	Functional Consequence	Example
Tandem duplication	Local cluster formation, rapid expansion	53/288 NLRs in pepper [11]
Segmental duplication	Genomic redistribution, conservation	-
Positive selection	Amino acid diversification, effector recognition	Hypervariable LRR domains [11]
Domain fusion/swaps	New recognition specificities	Integrated decoy domains [54]
Presence-absence variation	Intraspecific diversity	Arabidopsis accessions [18]

NLR genes display tremendous intraspecific diversity through presence/absence variation and heterogeneity in allelic variation, largely due to point mutations, intra-allelic recombination, and domain fusions or swaps [1]. This diversity is further enhanced by the organization of NLRs into genomic "neighborhoods" that vary greatly in size, content, and complexity between ecotypes [18]. Recent pangenomic studies in Arabidopsis thaliana have revealed 121 pangenomic NLR neighborhoods with substantial variation across 17 diverse accessions [18]. This complex genomic architecture enables what we term "diversity in diversity generation" – multiple uncorrelated mutational and genomic processes acting simultaneously to maintain a functionally adaptive immune system [18].

Molecular Mechanisms of Autoinhibition and Regulation

Structural Autoinhibition and Conformational Control

Plants employ multiple sophisticated mechanisms to maintain NLRs in an autoinhibited state until pathogen detection. The central NB-ARC domain mediates critical conformational changes through the exchange of ADP for ATP at its nucleotide binding pocket [1]. In the absence of pathogens, NLRs exist in an inactive ADP-bound resting state, with the C-terminal LRR domain mediating critical autoinhibitory intramolecular interactions that maintain this inactive state [1].

Recent structural studies of the tomato NLR protein NRC2 (SINRC2) have revealed novel oligomerization-mediated autoinhibition mechanisms [73]. Cryo-EM analysis demonstrates that SINRC2 forms dimers and tetramers that stabilize an inactive conformation through specific interfacial interactions [73]. The C2 symmetry-related SINRC2 molecules form a "head-to-head" interaction through two interfaces: (1) packing of the N-terminal outer surface of the LRR domain from one protomer against the three-helix bundle of the NBD domain from the other protomer, and (2) interactions between the N-terminal regions of the LRR domains from both protomers [73]. These intermolecular interactions not only stabilize the inactive state but also sequester SINRC2 from assembling into an active form, representing a sophisticated negative regulatory mechanism [73].

Table 2: Experimentally Validated NLR Autoinhibition Mechanisms

Regulatory Mechanism	Molecular Basis	Experimental Evidence
Oligomerization-mediated autoinhibition	Dimer/tetramer formation stabilizes inactive state	Cryo-EM of SINRC2 shows head-to-head dimers [73]
Nucleotide binding	ADP-bound state maintains autoinhibition	ADP observed between NBD and HD1 domains [73]
Intramolecular interactions	LRR domain autoinhibits NBD	Structural alignment with inactive ZAR1 [73]
Cofactor binding	Inositol phosphates stabilize inactive state	IP6/IP5 bound to LRR domain inner surface [73]
Transcriptional control	microRNA targeting conserved motifs	microRNAs target NLR P-loop sequences [34]

Cofactor Binding and Its Regulatory Role

A surprising discovery in NLR regulation came from structural analyses revealing that inositol phosphates serve as important cofactors in modulating NLR activity. Cryo-EM structures of SINRC2 unexpectedly showed inositol hexakisphosphate (IP6) or pentakisphosphate (IP5) bound to the inner surface of the C-terminal LRR domain [73]. Mass spectrometry confirmation of this binding interaction and functional studies demonstrating that mutations at the inositol phosphate-binding site impair pathogen-induced cell death suggest these molecules play a crucial role as cofactors in NLR signaling [73].

The mechanistic basis of this regulation appears to involve stabilization of the autoinhibited state, as the inositol phosphate molecules are bound at interfaces critical for maintaining the inactive conformation. This discovery opens new avenues for understanding how metabolic status might integrate with immune signaling, as inositol phosphate levels could potentially serve as a rheostat for NLR activation thresholds.

Experimental Approaches for Studying NLR Regulation

Structural Biology Techniques

Understanding NLR autoinhibition and activation mechanisms has been greatly advanced by structural biology approaches. Cryo-electron microscopy (cryo-EM) has emerged as a particularly powerful technique for visualizing NLR conformations and oligomeric states [73]. The workflow for structural analysis typically involves:

• Protein Expression and Purification: Full-length NLR proteins are expressed in insect cell systems (e.g., Sf9 or Hi5 cells) using baculoviral vectors to ensure proper post-translational modifications [73]. Proteins are purified using affinity chromatography (e.g., nickel-NTA for His-tagged proteins) followed by size-exclusion chromatography to isolate specific oligomeric states.

• Sample Preparation and Grid Freezing: Purified protein samples are applied to cryo-EM grids, blotted to achieve optimal thickness, and plunge-frozen in liquid ethane to preserve native structures.

• Data Collection and Processing: High-resolution images are collected using modern cryo-EM instruments, followed by extensive computational processing including particle picking, 2D classification, 3D classification, and refinement to generate density maps [73]. For the SINRC2 study, 1,139,771 particles were analyzed to resolve dimeric and tetrameric structures [73].

Diagram 1: Cryo-EM workflow for NLR structural analysis

Functional Validation Approaches

Following structural characterization, functional validation is essential to establish the biological relevance of observed mechanisms. Key experimental approaches include:

• Site-Directed Mutagenesis: Critical residues identified at oligomerization interfaces or cofactor binding sites are mutated to disrupt specific interactions [73]. For SINRC2, mutations at dimeric or interdimeric interfaces (e.g., Lys532, Arg221, Tyr506) were generated to test their functional significance.

• Cell Death Assays in Nicotiana benthamiana: Mutant NLR constructs are transiently expressed in N. benthamiana leaves via Agrobacterium infiltration to assess their impact on cell death induction [73]. Enhanced cell death upon disruption of oligomerization interfaces provides evidence for their autoinhibitory function.

• Pathogen Resistance Assays: Transgenic plants expressing mutant NLR variants are challenged with cognate pathogens to quantify changes in immunity. Mutations that enhance resistance without causing constitutive autoimmunity represent potential targets for crop improvement.

• Protein-Protein Interaction Studies: Techniques such as co-immunoprecipitation, yeast two-hybrid assays, and surface plasmon resonance are used to quantify how mutations affect NLR oligomerization and interactions with signaling partners.

Diagram 2: Functional validation of NLR regulatory mechanisms

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for Studying NLR Regulation

Reagent/Resource	Function/Application	Key Features
Baculovirus Expression System	NLR protein production for structural studies	Proper eukaryotic folding, post-translational modifications [73]
Size-Exclusion Chromatography	Separation of NLR oligomeric states	Resolves monomers, dimers, tetramers, higher-order oligomers [73]
Cryo-EM Infrastructure	High-resolution structure determination	Visualizes native conformations, oligomeric states [73]
Nicotiana benthamiana Transient Expression	Functional validation of NLR mutants	Rapid cell death assays, protein-protein interactions [73]
Site-Directed Mutagenesis Kits	Testing specific residues in autoinhibition	Validates structural interfaces, cofactor binding sites [73]
Mass Spectrometry	Cofactor identification, post-translational modifications	Identifies IP6/IP5 binding, phosphorylation sites [73]
Pangenome NLR Annotations	Evolutionary analysis of NLR diversity	Identifies conserved regulatory mechanisms across accessions [18]

Integrated Regulatory Networks and Future Perspectives

The regulation of NLR-mediated immunity extends beyond autoinhibitory mechanisms to include transcriptional control, post-translational modifications, and integrated signaling networks. A particularly intriguing regulatory layer involves microRNA-mediated control of NLR expression, where numerous microRNAs target nucleotide sequences encoding conserved motifs of NLRs (e.g., the P-loop) in flowering plants [34]. This bulk control of NLR transcripts may allow plant species to maintain large NLR repertoires without depletion of functional NLR loci, as microRNA-mediated transcriptional suppression could compensate for the fitness costs associated with NLR maintenance [34].

Furthermore, the emerging understanding of NLR networks reveals additional regulatory complexity. Rather than functioning as isolated units, many NLRs operate in sophisticated paired and networked systems where sensor NLRs (responsible for pathogen recognition) activate downstream helper NLRs (which mediate immune signaling) [1] [54]. These networks exhibit many-to-one and one-to-many functional connections, contributing to increased robustness and evolvability of the plant immune system [1]. Recent breakthroughs have shown how activated NLRs assemble into oligomeric resistosomes: CNLs like ZAR1 and Sr35 form Ca²⁺-permeable channels, while TNL resistosomes function as NADases that generate signaling molecules, which are subsequently sensed by EDS1–PAD4 or EDS1–SAG101 complexes to activate helper NLRs [54].

The future of NLR research and manipulation lies in leveraging these regulatory mechanisms for crop improvement. Emerging approaches include NLR bioengineering to create receptors with altered recognition specificities or enhanced signaling properties [74]. Technologies such as "Pikobodies" – bioengineered intracellular immune receptors where the recognition domain is replaced with a nanobody – enable reprogramming of immune receptors to trigger responses against any pathogen effector that the nanobody can bind [74]. Additionally, machine learning models trained on expanding datasets of NLR sequences and structures are accelerating our ability to predict and optimize regulatory interfaces for crop protection [74].

The "autoimmunity dilemma" in plant NLR immunity represents a fundamental challenge in plant biology: how to maintain a highly diverse and sensitive immune surveillance system without incurring the fitness costs of constitutive defense activation. The solution lies in multi-layered regulatory mechanisms that include structural autoinhibition through oligomerization, cofactor binding, transcriptional control, and integrated network behavior. Understanding these mechanisms not only provides fundamental insights into plant immunity but also opens exciting avenues for engineering disease resistance in crops. As structural biology techniques advance and computational tools become more sophisticated, our ability to precisely manipulate NLR regulation will continue to grow, offering new strategies for sustainable crop protection against evolving pathogens.

Plants operate under a fundamental physiological constraint: limited resources must be allocated between growth-related processes and defense mechanisms. This review examines the metabolic costs of resistance, focusing specifically on the NLR (Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat) gene family as central executors of the plant immune system. The NLR family comprises intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and activate effector-triggered immunity (ETI), typically inducing a strong defense response including programmed cell death (hypersensitive response, HR) to restrict pathogen colonization and proliferation [11]. However, this robust defense system carries significant energy expenditure and resource allocation costs that can impede growth and development. Understanding how plants manage this trade-off, particularly through the evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes, provides crucial insights for developing crops with balanced resistance and productivity.

The "growth-defense trade-off" concept explains why plants cannot simultaneously maximize both growth and immunity [75]. Most characterized growth-defense trade-offs originate from antagonistic crosstalk among hormone signaling pathways rather than direct metabolic expenditure alone. Defense hormones such as salicylic acid (SA) often suppress growth-promoting pathways, while jasmonic acid (JA) and gibberellins (GAs) can have opposing effects on defense and growth regulation [75]. This review explores how NLR genes, as critical components of plant immunity, contribute to these costs and how their evolutionary patterns reflect strategies to mitigate such trade-offs.

Mechanisms Generating Costs of NLR-Mediated Immunity

Direct and Indirect Metabolic Expenditures

The metabolic costs of NLR-mediated immunity arise through multiple mechanisms. Direct costs include the energy required for biosynthesis of NLR proteins, which are typically large and complex, along with the substantial metabolic investment needed to sustain downstream defense signaling and activation of defense responses [11] [75]. The indirect costs are equally significant, primarily stemming from the reallocation of resources away from growth and developmental processes. These competing resource demands create a physiological conflict where enhanced defense often correlates with reduced biomass accumulation and reproductive output.

A primary way plants mitigate these costs is through restricted expression of resistance genes, which can be achieved through inducible expression of defense genes rather than constitutive activation, or by concentrating defense to particular times or tissues [75]. Additionally, defense pathways can be primed for more effective induction, and these primed states can sometimes be transmitted to offspring, providing a mechanism for enhanced defense readiness without continuous metabolic investment [75].

Hormonal Antagonism and Signaling Conflicts

The trade-off between growth and defense is largely mediated by antagonistic crosstalk between hormone signaling pathways. Salicylic acid (SA)-mediated defense responses, which are particularly effective against biotrophic pathogens, often suppress growth-promoting pathways regulated by auxins and gibberellins [75]. Conversely, jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET), which govern responses against necrotrophs and herbivores, also engage in complex interactions with growth-regulating hormones. This hormonal antagonism creates a signaling dilemma where plants must prioritize one set of responses over another.

Research on lesion-mimic mutants (LMMs) in rice illustrates this trade-off vividly. The LMM8 mutant exhibits enhanced defense responses but suffers from reduced plant height, inferior agronomic traits, decreased photosynthetic pigments, chloroplast damage, and increased production of reactive oxygen species [76]. These phenotypic alterations demonstrate how constitutive activation of defense pathways directly compromises growth and photosynthetic efficiency, highlighting the physiological costs of unchecked immunity.

Evolutionary Strategies for Balancing NLR Costs

Genomic Organization and Expression Regulation

The evolutionary dynamics of NLR genes reveal sophisticated strategies for managing growth-defense trade-offs. The genomic organization of NLR genes into coregulatory modules helps reduce costs by enabling coordinated expression patterns [75]. Studies across plant species show that NLR genes frequently reside in complex clusters, particularly near chromosomal telomeres, facilitating rapid generation of new resistance alleles through local amplification while containing the metabolic costs of their maintenance [11].

Table 1: Evolutionary Patterns of NLR Genes in Selected Plant Families

Plant Species/Family	NLR Count	Expansion Mechanism	Key Evolutionary Feature	Impact on Trade-off
Oleaceae family	Varies by genus	Conservation (Fraxinus) vs. Expansion (Olea)	Ancient WGD retention in Fraxinus; Recent duplications in Olea	Fraxinus: Specialized immunity with potential energy efficiency; Olea: Broader recognition with higher costs [24]
Asparagus setaceus (wild)	63 NLR genes	Not specified	Higher NLR diversity	Enhanced resistance capabilities [4]
Asparagus officinalis (cultivated)	27 NLR genes	Contraction during domestication	Loss of NLR diversity	Increased disease susceptibility, potentially freeing resources for growth [4]
Capsicum annuum (pepper)	288 canonical NLRs	Tandem duplication (18.4% of NLRs)	Clustering near telomeric regions	Enables rapid adaptation to pathogens while containing genomic costs [11]
Arabidopsis thaliana	~150 NLRs	Diverse duplication mechanisms	Modular organization	Fine-regulated expression to minimize fitness costs [75]

Lineage-Specific Evolutionary Paths

Different plant lineages have evolved distinct strategies for managing NLR-mediated resistance costs. In the Oleaceae family, contrasting evolutionary paths are evident between Fraxinus (ash trees) and Olea (olives). Fraxinus species predominantly employ a strategy of gene conservation, maintaining specialized immune responses through conserved NLR genes with potential trade-offs in pathogen adaptation but possibly greater energy efficiency [24]. In contrast, Olea species have undergone extensive gene expansion driven by recent duplications and significant birth of novel NLR gene families, enhancing their ability to recognize diverse pathogens but likely incurring higher metabolic costs [24].

The domestication process of garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) provides a compelling case study of how artificial selection has altered the growth-defense balance. Comparative genomic analysis reveals a marked contraction of the NLR gene repertoire during domestication, with wild relative Asparagus setaceus possessing 63 NLR genes compared to only 27 in cultivated A. officinalis [4]. This reduction is associated with increased disease susceptibility in the cultivated species but potentially reallocates resources toward traits preferred for agricultural production, demonstrating how human selection has prioritized growth over defense.

Methodological Framework for Studying NLR Trade-offs

Experimental Approaches and Assessment Metrics

Investigating the growth-defense trade-off in the context of NLR evolution requires specialized methodological approaches. Disease quantification represents a fundamental component, with the Disease Index (DI) serving as a commonly used measure defined as DI = (w/t)*4, where w represents the number of wilted leaves and t represents the total number of leaves per plant [77]. Researchers typically employ three primary analytical frameworks for assessing disease resistance and its relationship to growth parameters:

• Area Under the Disease Progression Curve (AUDPC): Provides a linked measure of disease incidence and time, summarizing disease progression in a single value [77].
• Analysis of disease indices over time: Uses DI as a response variable to describe the disease progression curve itself, often analyzed using linear regression or generalized linear models [77].
• Survival analysis: Examines the time until a specific disease event occurs (e.g., reaching a DI threshold of 2.5), employing specialized statistical methods like Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models [77].

Genomic and Transcriptomic Tools

Modern investigations of NLR gene evolution increasingly rely on comparative genomics and transcriptomic profiling. The NLRtracker pipeline enables high-throughput mining of NLR genes from genomic data, facilitating comparative analyses across multiple species [24]. For transcriptomic studies, RNA-seq experiments conducted during pathogen infection can identify differentially expressed NLR genes, with subsequent protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis predicting key functional relationships among them [11].

Table 2: Essential Methodologies for NLR and Trade-off Research

Methodology Category	Specific Techniques	Primary Applications	Key Outputs
NLR Identification	NLRtracker pipeline, HMMER searches with NB-ARC domain (PF00931), BLASTp against reference NLRs	Genome-wide NLR annotation, classification by domain architecture (TNL, CNL, RNL)	Comprehensive NLR repertoires, chromosomal distribution patterns [24] [11]
Evolutionary Analysis	MCScanX for synteny, OrthoFinder for orthogroups, Maximum Likelihood phylogenetics	Determining duplication events (tandem vs. segmental), evolutionary relationships, selection pressures	Expansion/contraction patterns, orthologous gene pairs, phylogenetic clusters [11] [4]
Expression Studies	RNA-seq (e.g., Illumina), RT-qPCR validation, Differential expression (DESeq2)	NLR induction upon pathogen challenge, comparative expression between resistant/susceptible genotypes	Differentially expressed NLRs, expression patterns in defense responses [24] [11]
Phenotypic Assessment	Disease Index scoring, AUDPC calculation, Survival analysis	Quantifying resistance levels, comparing disease progression, statistical modeling of resistance	Disease progression curves, survival probabilities, resistance metrics [77]
Regulatory Analysis	PlantCARE for cis-elements, Promoter sequence analysis	Identifying defense-related regulatory motifs (SA/JA-responsive elements, W-boxes)	Cis-regulatory element profiles, hormone-responsive patterns [11] [4]

Diagram 1: Metabolic Trade-off Between NLR-Mediated Defense and Growth Processes. This diagram illustrates how pathogen detection activates NLR genes, triggering resource-intensive defense responses that compete with growth processes for limited metabolic resources, resulting in fitness costs.

Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NLR and Growth-Defense Trade-off Studies

Reagent Category	Specific Examples	Research Applications	Functional Role
Genomic Resources	Reference genomes (e.g., Fraxinus pennsylvanica, Olea europaea, Capsicum annuum 'Zhangshugang')	Comparative genomics, NLR identification, evolutionary analysis	Provide foundational datasets for genome-wide NLR annotation and cross-species comparisons [24] [11]
Bioinformatic Tools	NLRtracker, HMMER v3.3.2, InterProScan, OrthoFinder, MCScanX	NLR mining, domain architecture analysis, phylogenetic reconstruction, synteny analysis	Enable high-throughput identification, classification, and evolutionary analysis of NLR genes [24] [11] [4]
Expression Analysis	RNA-seq datasets (e.g., Illumina), RT-qPCR assays, DESeq2 package	Transcriptome profiling, differential expression analysis, validation of NLR expression	Quantify NLR gene expression changes in response to pathogens or during development [24] [11]
Pathogen Assays	Pure cultures (e.g., Phomopsis asparagi, Phytophthora capsici), inoculation protocols	Disease resistance phenotyping, pathogen challenge experiments	Standardized assessment of NLR-mediated resistance and growth responses [11] [4]
Computational Resources	PlantCARE database, Pfam, PRGdb 4.0, STRING database	Cis-element prediction, domain annotation, PPI network analysis	Identify regulatory elements, classify protein domains, predict functional interactions [11] [4]

Mitigation Strategies and Future Research Directions

Natural and Engineered Mitigation Approaches

Plants have evolved several sophisticated mechanisms to mitigate the costs of NLR-mediated resistance. A primary strategy involves the fine-scale regulation of R gene expression, which can be achieved through inducible rather than constitutive expression, or by restricting defense responses to specific tissues or developmental stages [75]. Additionally, the priming of defense pathways enables plants to maintain a state of readiness without the continuous metabolic investment required for full activation, and evidence suggests these primed states can sometimes be transmitted to subsequent generations [75].

Emerging research indicates that plants can also recruit protection from other species. Exciting new evidence demonstrates that a plant's genotype influences the composition of its microbiome, supporting the hypothesis that plants can shape their microbiome to enhance defense capabilities [75]. This approach represents a potentially cost-effective strategy for boosting resistance without direct genomic investment in additional NLR genes.

Breeding and Biotechnological Applications

Understanding the evolutionary dynamics and metabolic costs of NLR genes has profound implications for crop improvement strategies. Traditional breeding has often inadvertently selected for reduced NLR diversity, as evidenced in asparagus domestication where the cultivated species retains only 27 NLR genes compared to 63 in its wild relative [4]. Modern molecular breeding approaches now aim to balance this trade-off by pyramiding quantitative resistance loci with major R genes, creating more durable and potentially less costly resistance profiles [78].

Future research directions should focus on elucidating the precise metabolic costs of specific NLR genes and pathways, developing strategies to fine-tune their expression for optimal balance between growth and defense, and exploring how natural variation in NLR clusters can be harnessed for breeding programs. The integration of genomic technologies with metabolic modeling will enable more precise manipulation of the growth-defense balance, potentially overcoming one of agriculture's most fundamental constraints.

Diagram 2: Comprehensive Workflow for Studying NLR Genes and Growth-Defense Trade-offs. This diagram outlines the key methodological stages in NLR research, from initial identification through genomic mining to functional characterization and ultimate application in balancing resistance and growth.

Addressing Gene Silencing and Unstable Expression in Multicopy Transgenic Lines

In the context of NLR (NOD-like receptor) gene family evolution research, achieving stable transgene expression is critical for functionally characterizing immune receptor variants, signaling components, and regulatory mechanisms. Multicopy transgene integrations present a fundamental obstacle, as they frequently trigger homology-dependent gene silencing (HDGS) mechanisms that lead to unstable or completely abolished expression [79]. This silencing represents a significant experimental bottleneck, potentially confounding phenotypic analyses and hampering efforts to understand NLR evolutionary dynamics.

The NLR gene family exhibits remarkable diversification across plant species, with copy numbers ranging from approximately 100 in cucumber to over 2000 in bread wheat [37]. This natural expansion, primarily driven by tandem duplication events, provides a evolutionary substrate for generating novel pathogen recognition specificities [11]. However, when researchers attempt to introduce additional NLR transgenes, they inadvertently mimic these natural duplication events, often triggering the same surveillance mechanisms that plants employ to regulate their own expanded NLR repertoires. Understanding and circumventing these silencing mechanisms is therefore essential for advancing both fundamental knowledge of plant immunity and applied crop improvement strategies.

Mechanisms of Transgene Silencing

Gene silencing in multicopy transgenic lines occurs through two primary mechanistic routes: transcriptional gene silencing (TGS) and post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS). Both pathways ultimately prevent accumulation of functional transgenic protein, but they operate at distinct regulatory levels with different molecular signatures.

Transcriptional Gene Silencing (TGS)

TGS involves epigenetic modifications that block transcription initiation, primarily through DNA methylation and chromatin remodeling. When transgenes integrate as multiple copies, particularly in complex tandem repeats or inverted orientations, they frequently become targets for de novo DNA methylation [79]. This methylation predominantly affects promoter regions, especially the CaMV 35S promoter commonly used in plant transformation vectors. The silent state associated with methylated promoters is further stabilized through histone modifications that create repressive chromatin configurations, effectively making the transgene inaccessible to the transcriptional machinery [79].

Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS)

PTGS operates after transcription through sequence-specific mRNA degradation in the cytoplasm. This form of silencing is typically triggered by the formation of double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) molecules, which can arise from read-through transcription of inverted transgene repeats or from aberrant RNAs produced by complex loci [79]. The dsRNA is recognized and processed by Dicer-like enzymes into small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) of 21-24 nucleotides. These siRNAs are then incorporated into RNA-induced silencing complexes (RISC) that guide the cleavage of complementary mRNA transcripts, preventing protein production [80]. The PTGS mechanism can target both transgenes and endogenous genes with sufficient sequence similarity, potentially causing unintended pleiotropic effects.

Table 1: Key Characteristics of Gene Silencing Mechanisms

Feature	Transcriptional Gene Silencing (TGS)	Post-Transcriptional Gene Silencing (PTGS)
Level of regulation	Transcription initiation	mRNA stability and translation
Primary molecular markers	Promoter DNA methylation, repressive histone marks	Sequence-specific siRNA production, mRNA degradation
Triggering structures	Tandem repeats, complex integration loci	Inverted repeats, dsRNA formation
Reversibility	Relatively stable, heritable	Often transient, requires ongoing dsRNA production
Detection methods	Northern blot (no primary transcript), methylation-sensitive PCR	siRNA Northern blot, 5' RACE for cleaved transcripts

Strategies to Minimize Silencing in Transgenic Lines

Vector Systems for Single-Copy Integration

The most effective approach to prevent silencing involves ensuring single-copy transgene integration. The BIBAC-GW (Binary Bacterial Artificial Chromosome-Gateway) vector system addresses this need by facilitating precise, single-copy integration of large DNA fragments [81]. This system combines the high transformation efficiency of binary vectors with the large insert capacity of BACs, incorporating Gateway recombination technology for streamlined cloning. When implemented according to established protocols, the BIBAC-GW system yields transformation efficiencies of 0.2-0.5%, with approximately 50% of transgenic events containing intact single-copy T-DNA integrations [81].

The critical advantage of single-copy transgenes lies in their reduced susceptibility to homology-dependent silencing mechanisms. Without extensive repeated sequences, these integrations are less likely to trigger DNA methylation or siRNA production, resulting in more stable long-term expression. This is particularly important for NLR gene studies, where consistent expression levels are essential for quantifying immune signaling outputs and hypersensitive response thresholds.

Emerging Alternatives: Transient Silencing Technologies

For applications requiring gene silencing without stable transformation, recent advances in spray-induced gene silencing (SIGS) and virus-delivered short RNA inserts (vsRNAi) offer non-transgenic alternatives. The vsRNAi technology utilizes engineered viral vectors to deliver ultra-short RNA sequences (as short as 24 nucleotides) that trigger RNA interference against specific target genes [82] [83]. This method significantly reduces the size and complexity of traditional silencing constructs while maintaining high specificity [83]. Since vsRNAi does not create permanent genetic changes, it avoids the integration-related silencing mechanisms entirely, making it particularly valuable for functional screening of NLR genes in diverse genetic backgrounds.

Experimental Protocols for Silencing Avoidance and Detection

Generating Single-Copy Transgenics Using BIBAC-GW

The following protocol outlines the key steps for producing transgenic plants with single-copy insertions using the BIBAC-GW system, adapted from established methodologies [81]:

• Vector Construction: Recombine your gene of interest into the pBIBAC-GW destination vector using Gateway LR Clonase reaction. Select the appropriate version with either Glufosinate-ammonium resistance or DsRed fluorescence in seed coats for plant selection, and kanamycin resistance for bacterial selection.

• Agrobacterium Transformation: Introduce the constructed pBIBAC-GW vector into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain LBA4404 or EHA105 using freeze-thaw method. Verify transformation by PCR amplification of the vector backbone.

• Plant Transformation: Transform your target plant species using standard Agrobacterium-mediated methods. For Arabidopsis, use the floral dip protocol; for other species, use explant-based transformation appropriate for the species.

• Transgenic Selection: Select transformed plants using the appropriate marker—either Basta spraying for Glufosinate-ammonium resistance or visual screening for DsRed fluorescence in seeds.

• Molecular Validation: Confirm single-copy integration through DNA blotting as described in Section 4.3.

BIBAC-GW Transgenic Generation Workflow

DNA Blotting for Copy Number Determination

DNA blotting (Southern blotting) provides definitive evidence of transgene copy number and intactness. The following protocol ensures accurate interpretation of integration patterns [81]:

• DNA Extraction and Digestion: Isolate high-molecular-weight genomic DNA from transgenic and wild-type control plants. Digest 10-15μg DNA with appropriate restriction enzymes:

  • Use an enzyme that cuts once within the T-DNA to determine copy number
  • Use enzymes that cut at both ends of the T-DNA to assess intactness

• Gel Electrophoresis and Transfer: Separate digested DNA on a 0.8% agarose gel at 25V for 16-20 hours. Denature DNA in gel and transfer to nylon membrane using capillary transfer.

• Probe Labeling and Hybridization: Prepare a probe specific to a unique region of your transgene (avoiding repetitive elements). Label with digoxigenin using the DIG High Prime DNA Labeling and Detection Starter Kit II. Hybridize at appropriate stringency based on probe characteristics.

• Detection and Interpretation: Detect hybridized probes using chemiluminescent substrate and expose to X-ray film. Analyze banding patterns:

  • Single band = single-copy integration
  • Multiple bands with predicted sizes = intact insertion
  • Unexpected band sizes = rearranged or partial insertions

Expression Analysis in Transgenic Lines

Comprehensive expression analysis confirms both transcriptional and post-transcriptional integrity:

• Transcript Accumulation: Isolate total RNA from transgenic tissue using TRIzol reagent. Perform Northern blotting using transgene-specific probes to detect full-length transcripts. Alternative methods include RT-qPCR with primers spanning different regions of the transgene.

• siRNA Detection: For lines showing poor expression, analyze small RNA fractions by Northern blotting to detect transgene-derived siRNAs, which indicate active PTGS.

• Protein Verification: Confirm protein accumulation by Western blotting where antibodies are available, or by functional assays appropriate for your NLR gene of interest (e.g., hypersensitive response induction).

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 2: Key Research Reagents for Silencing-Avoidant Transgenesis

Reagent/System	Function	Application in NLR Research
BIBAC-GW vector system	Single-copy transgene integration	Stable expression of NLR variants for functional studies
Gateway cloning system	High-efficiency DNA recombination	Rapid cloning of NLR gene variants into expression vectors
Glufosinate-ammonium (Basta)	Plant selection marker	Selection of transgenic events without antibiotic resistance genes
DsRed seed fluorescence	Visual selection marker	Non-destructive screening of transgenic seeds, tracking NLR expression
Methylation-sensitive restriction enzymes	Detection of DNA methylation	Monitoring epigenetic silencing of NLR transgene promoters
DIG-labeled nucleic acid probes	Sensitive DNA/RNA detection	Accurate copy number determination and transcript analysis

Integration with NLR Gene Family Evolution Research

The challenge of transgene silencing directly parallels natural evolutionary constraints on NLR gene family expansion. Plants have evolved sophisticated regulatory mechanisms to manage their extensive NLR repertoires, including epigenetic regulation and miRNA-mediated control [37] [84]. These natural mechanisms likely share molecular components with the transgene silencing pathways discussed here.

Recent studies have revealed that miRNAs target conserved motifs within NLR transcripts, including the P-loop region, providing a layer of transcriptional control that may offset the fitness costs of maintaining large NLR repertoires [84]. When designing transgenic constructs for NLR studies, researchers should therefore bioinformatically screen transgene sequences for potential miRNA binding sites that might trigger unintended regulation.

The distribution of NLR genes in plant genomes further informs transgene design strategies. Native NLR genes frequently cluster in telomeric regions with high recombination rates, as observed in pepper where Chr09 harbors 63 NLR genes [11]. This genomic environment promotes rapid evolution through local rearrangements and tandem duplications. While multicopy transgenes trigger silencing, the natural success of NLR clusters suggests that chromatin context and regulatory elements work in concert to permit expression of duplicated resistance genes. Incorporating native NLR genomic contexts, including introns and flanking sequences, may therefore enhance transgene expression stability in functional studies.

Addressing gene silencing in multicopy transgenic lines requires a multifaceted approach combining strategic vector design, careful molecular validation, and appreciation of natural NLR genomic organization. The BIBAC-GW system provides a reliable method for achieving single-copy integrations, while emerging technologies like vsRNAi offer alternative pathways for gene function analysis without stable transformation. As research on NLR gene evolution advances, integrating knowledge of natural regulatory mechanisms with transgenic design principles will be essential for generating reliable functional data. The protocols and strategies outlined here provide a framework for minimizing silencing artifacts, thereby strengthening investigations into the molecular basis of plant immunity and the evolutionary dynamics of the NLR gene family.

Plant domestication has fundamentally reshaped the genetic architecture of crops, often at the cost of their innate immune systems. This whitepaper examines the pervasive phenomenon of NLR (Nucleotide-binding, Leucine-rich Repeat) gene loss in cultivated varieties compared to their wild relatives—a "domestication penalty" that compromises disease resistance. We synthesize recent genomic evidence quantifying this contraction across diverse plant families and analyze the evolutionary pressures driving it. The paper further explores molecular mechanisms underlying NLR regulation and functionality, presents experimental frameworks for NLR identification and validation, and proposes strategic pathways for reintroducing NLR diversity to enhance crop resilience without sacrificing yield.

NLR genes constitute one of the largest and most variable gene families in plants, encoding intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and trigger robust immune responses, including the hypersensitive response [55] [34]. This effector-triggered immunity provides a crucial layer of disease resistance. However, maintaining a broad and functional NLR repertoire is metabolically costly, and improper regulation can lead to autoimmunity, retarded growth, and yield penalties—a phenomenon termed the "cost of resistance" [55] [37].

During domestication, artificial selection for agronomic traits like yield, palatability, and uniform maturation has often inadvertently selected for reduced NLR repertoires. This occurs through two primary mechanisms: relaxed selection against pathogens in cultivated environments, reducing the need for diverse immunity, and direct selection against NLR alleles whose defensive activities incur fitness costs that conflict with yield [85] [4]. The result is a domestication penalty, where elite cultivars are left genetically impoverished in their immune capacity, becoming increasingly vulnerable to emergent pathogens.

Quantitative Evidence of NLR Contraction in Domesticates

Comparative genomic analyses across multiple plant families provide unequivocal evidence for NLR contraction during domestication. The table below summarizes key findings from recent studies.

Table 1: Documented Cases of NLR Gene Loss During Domestication

Crop Species (Domesticated)	Wild Relative(s)	Key Finding	Primary Cause	Citation
Garden Asparagus (A. officinalis)	A. setaceus, A. kiusianus	NLR count contracted from 63 (A. setaceus) to 27 (A. officinalis); retained NLRs showed subdued expression upon pathogen challenge.	Artificial selection for yield/quality; functional impairment of retained genes.	[4]
Multiple Crops (Grape, Mandarin, Rice, Barley, Yellow Sarson)	Their wild counterparts	Significant reduction in immune receptor (PRR & NLR) repertoires compared to wild relatives.	Relaxed selection during domestication; cost of resistance.	[85]
Various Angiosperms with aquatic, parasitic, or carnivorous lifestyles	Their non-specialist relatives	Convergent NLR reduction associated with ecological adaptation away from typical pathogen pressures.	Relaxed selection in specialized niches.	[2]

A comprehensive analysis of 15 domesticated crops and their wild relatives revealed that while the overall rate of immune receptor loss mirrored background gene loss, a positive association exists between the duration of domestication and the extent of immune gene loss [85]. This suggests a subtle but cumulative pressure, consistent with relaxed selection rather than a single, strong bottleneck event.

Molecular Mechanisms and Evolutionary Dynamics

The Fitness Cost of NLRs and Its Regulation

The "cost of resistance" is not merely theoretical. For example, the presence of the Arabidopsis NLR RPM1 was shown to reduce silique and seed production [55] [9]. Similarly, in rice, the lack of suppression of the NLR gene PigmR leads to decreased grain weight [9]. These costs stem from the metabolic burden of protein synthesis and, critically, from the risk of autoimmunity—the inadvertent activation of defense responses in the absence of pathogens [55] [37].

To mitigate these costs, plants employ sophisticated, multi-layered regulatory systems to control NLR abundance and activity:

• Transcriptional Regulation: Epigenetic mechanisms, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, fine-tune NLR gene expression. For instance, DNA methylation in the promoter of the Medicago truncatula TNL Met-REP1 keeps it silent until demethylation upon pathogen perception activates it [55].
• Post-transcriptional Regulation: A plethora of microRNAs (miRNAs) target conserved nucleotide sequences within NLR transcripts, providing a bulk control mechanism that allows plants to maintain large NLR repertoires without triggering autoimmunity [34] [37].
• Protein-Level Regulation: NLR proteins are maintained in an equilibrium between "ON" and "OFF" states in the absence of pathogens. Pathogen effectors bind to and stabilize the "ON" conformation, shifting this equilibrium to activate defense signaling [55] [37].

Diagram: Multi-layered regulatory mechanisms controlling NLR gene expression and activity to minimize fitness costs.

Evolutionary Forces Shaping NLR Repertoires

The evolution of the NLR gene family is characterized by extraordinary dynamism. NLRs are often organized in complex clusters within genomes, a structural arrangement that facilitates rapid evolution and diversification through mechanisms like gene duplication, unequal crossing-over, and recombination [8] [34] [37]. This dynamism allows plants to keep pace with fast-evolving pathogens.

Different plant lineages exhibit varied evolutionary strategies. In the Oleaceae family, for example, the genus Fraxinus (ash trees) shows a predominant strategy of NLR conservation, while the genus Olea (olives) has undergone extensive NLR expansion via recent gene duplications [8]. This suggests a trade-off: conserved genes may provide stable, specialized immune responses, while expanded repertoires may enhance the ability to recognize a diverse array of pathogens [8].

Experimental Protocols for NLR Identification and Validation

Research to counteract the domestication penalty relies on robust methods to identify, characterize, and validate functional NLR genes. The following workflow and detailed protocols outline a comprehensive approach.

Diagram: An integrated experimental workflow for the discovery and validation of functional NLRs.

Genome-Wide Identification and Classification of NLR Genes

Objective: To comprehensively catalog NLR genes from sequenced genomes of cultivated and wild plants. Methodology:

• Data Acquisition: Obtain high-quality genome assemblies and annotation files for target species and their wild relatives from public repositories (e.g., NCBI, Plant GARDEN, Dryad) [8] [4].
• HMMER Search: Perform Hidden Markov Model (HMM) searches against the proteome of each species using the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) as a query. Retain sequences with an E-value ≤ 1e-5 [4].
• BLAST Augmentation: Conduct complementary local BLASTp searches using reference NLR protein sequences from well-characterized species (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa) with a stringent E-value cutoff (e.g., 1e-10) [4].
• Domain Architecture Validation: Validate candidate sequences using domain analysis tools like InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search. Classify final NLRs into subfamilies (TNL, CNL, RNL) based on the presence of TIR, CC, or RPW8 N-terminal domains [4].
• Chromosomal Mapping: Determine the genomic locations and clustering patterns of identified NLRs using tools like BEDTools and visualize with software such as TBtools [4].

Transcriptomic Screening for Functional NLR Candidates

Objective: To prioritize NLR genes that are likely functional based on their expression profiles. Methodology:

• RNA-seq Data Collection: Source RNA sequencing data from relevant tissues (e.g., leaves, roots) of uninfected plants from databases like the Sequence Read Archive (SRA) [8] [9].
• Expression Level Analysis: Assemble transcriptomes or map reads to the reference genome to calculate transcripts per million (TPM) or fragments per kilobase million (FPKM) for each NLR gene.
• Candidate Prioritization: Recent evidence challenges the dogma that NLRs are always lowly expressed; many known functional NLRs show high steady-state expression in uninfected tissues [9]. Prioritize NLRs within the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts for further validation.

High-Throughput (HTP) Transformation and Phenotyping

Objective: To functionally validate the resistance conferred by candidate NLR genes at scale. Methodology:

• Vector Construction: Clone candidate NLR genes, including their native promoters and terminators, into binary transformation vectors suitable for the crop of interest [9].
• HTP Transformation: Utilize established, high-efficiency transformation systems (e.g., Agrobacterium-mediated transformation for wheat) to generate large arrays of transgenic lines, each expressing a single candidate NLR [9].
• Pathogen Inoculation: Challenge T1 or T2 transgenic seedlings with the target pathogen(s) under controlled conditions. For fungal pathogens like rusts, this typically involves spraying with urediniospores.
• Phenotypic Scoring: Assess disease symptoms (e.g., infection type, pustule size and density) after an appropriate incubation period. Compare transgenic lines to resistant and susceptible controls to identify NLRs conferring effective resistance [9].

Table 2: The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Reagents and Resources for NLR Research

Research Reagent / Resource	Function / Application	Key Details & Considerations
High-Quality Genome Assemblies	Reference for NLR identification and comparative genomics.	Chromosomal-level assemblies are ideal. Prioritize versions with high BUSCO scores for completeness.
HMM Profile (PF00931)	Bioinformatics identification of the conserved NB-ARC domain in NLRs.	Found in the Pfam database. The primary tool for initial NLR mining.
InterProScan / NCBI CD-Search	Validation of protein domains and NLR classification.	Critical for distinguishing full-length NLRs from truncated forms and classifying into TNL/CNL/RNL subfamilies.
RNA-seq Datasets (SRA)	Analysis of NLR expression patterns and prioritization of candidates.	Data from uninfected and pathogen-challenged tissues are valuable.
Binary Vectors for Plant Transformation	Delivery and expression of candidate NLR genes in planta.	Should be compatible with the chosen transformation method and contain selectable markers for the host plant.
Pathogen Isolates	Biotic challenge for functional validation of NLR-mediated resistance.	Characterized isolates with known Avr gene profiles are essential for determining recognition specificity.

Strategic Pathways to Counteract the Domestication Penalty

To rebuild robust immune systems in crops, researchers and breeders can leverage the following strategies, informed by the latest genomic and molecular insights:

• Mining Wild Relatives and Pangenomes: Moving beyond single reference genomes to pangenome analyses captures the full NLR diversity present across wild and landrace populations. This identifies NLR alleles lost during domestication that can be reintroduced into elite backgrounds [18].

• Exploiting High-Expression Signatures: Utilizing transcriptomic screening to identify highly expressed NLRs in wild relatives provides a high-probability pipeline for discovering functional resistance genes, as demonstrated in wheat [9].

• Engineering NLR Networks and Stacks: Since some NLRs require specific "helper" NLRs or function in pairs, transferring entire functional modules may be more successful than introducing single "sensor" NLRs [54] [9]. Deploying stacked NLRs with different recognition specificities can also provide more durable resistance.

• Precision Regulation of NLR Expression: To avoid the fitness costs associated with constitutive defense activation, NLR expression can be fine-tuned using tissue-specific or pathogen-inducible promoters. This ensures strong defense when needed while minimizing yield penalties [55].

• Harnessing Natural Regulatory Mechanisms: Understanding and co-opting natural regulatory mechanisms, such as the miRNA-mediated control of NLRs, could provide new tools to achieve optimal NLR expression levels in crops [34] [37].

The penalty imposed by domestication on the NLR immune receptor repertoire is a significant genetic vulnerability in modern agriculture. Counteracting this penalty requires a deep understanding of NLR evolution, regulation, and function. By integrating comparative genomics, transcriptomics, and high-throughput functional validation, researchers can systematically identify and deploy valuable NLR genes from wild germplasm. The strategic reintroduction and intelligent regulation of these genes, informed by an appreciation of the "cost of resistance," paves the way for developing high-yielding crops that retain the resilient immune systems of their wild progenitors.

The plant immune system relies heavily on intracellular nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and initiate robust defense responses, often accompanied by localized programmed cell death known as the hypersensitive response [1]. For decades, a pervasive assumption in plant immunity held that NLR genes require strict transcriptional repression in uninfected plants to avoid autoimmunity and fitness costs [9]. This paradigm suggested that uncontrolled NLR expression could trigger spontaneous cell death and reduce plant vigor, as observed in cases like Arabidopsis RPM1, which reduced silique and seed production, and LAZ5 overexpression, which caused deleterious effects [9]. However, recent evidence challenges this conventional wisdom, revealing that functional NLRs frequently exhibit substantial expression in healthy tissues and may require specific expression thresholds for optimal function [9].

This technical guide examines the critical balance between achieving sufficient NLR expression for effective pathogen recognition while avoiding detrimental fitness consequences. We explore the mechanistic basis for NLR expression thresholds, detailed methodologies for quantifying and optimizing expression levels, and practical strategies for manipulating NLR regulation in crop improvement programs. Within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution, understanding expression optimization provides crucial insights into how plants maintain effective immune systems despite constant pathogen pressure and evolutionary constraints.

Molecular Basis of NLR Expression Thresholds

Structural and Functional Constraints

NLR proteins function as molecular switches within plant immune signaling networks, existing in an inactive ADP-bound state until pathogen perception triggers a conformational change to an active ATP-bound state [1]. This transition initiates signaling cascades that culminate in effector-triggered immunity (ETI). The canonical NLR structure comprises three core domains: an N-terminal signaling domain (CC, TIR, or RPW8), a central nucleotide-binding and oligomerization domain (NB-ARC), and a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) region involved in effector recognition and autoinhibition [1].

Recent evidence indicates that multiple NLR copies may be necessary to achieve sufficient protein concentrations for proper immune complex formation and signaling initiation. In barley, multicopy insertions of the Mla7 NLR were required for resistance to Blumeria hordei, with single-copy transgenes failing to confer immunity [9]. Native Mla7 exists as three identical copies in the haploid genome of barley cv. CI 16147, supporting the hypothesis that specific expression thresholds are necessary for function [9]. This requirement for threshold expression levels represents a significant consideration in NLR gene transfer and stacking approaches for crop improvement.

Expression Signatures of Functional NLRs

Comparative analyses across monocot and dicot species reveal that known functional NLRs consistently display higher steady-state expression levels in uninfected plants. In Arabidopsis thaliana, characterized NLRs are significantly enriched in the top 15% of expressed NLR transcripts, with the most highly expressed NLR (ZAR1) exceeding median and mean expression levels for all genes [9]. Similar patterns emerge in crop species, where NLRs conferring resistance against major pathogens show prominent expression signatures:

Table: Expression Profiles of Characterized NLR Genes Across Plant Species

NLR Gene	Species	Pathogen Specificity	Expression Characteristics
Mla7/8	Barley (Hordeum vulgare)	Blumeria hordei, Puccinia striiformis	Highly expressed; requires multiple copies for function [9]
Sr46, SrTA1662, Sr45	Wheat (Aegilops tauschii)	Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici	Highly expressed across accessions [9]
ZAR1	Arabidopsis thaliana	Multiple bacterial pathogens	Most highly expressed NLR in ecotype Col-0 [9]
Rpi-amr1	Solanum americanum	Phytophthora infestans	Highly expressed NLR isoform [9]
Mi-1	Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum)	Aphids, whitefly, nematodes	Highly expressed in leaves and roots [9]
NRC helpers	Solanaceae species	Multiple pathogens	Tissue-specific expression patterns [9]

The functional implication of these expression patterns extends to isoform selection, as evidenced by Rpi-amr1, where the most highly expressed transcript isoform corresponds to the functional NLR protein [9]. This relationship between expression level and functionality provides a valuable predictive signature for identifying candidate resistance genes from genomic data.

Experimental Approaches for Quantifying NLR Expression Thresholds

High-Throughput Transformation and Phenotyping

The discovery of expression signatures associated with functional NLRs enabled the development of pipelines for systematic NLR identification and validation. A proof-of-concept study generated a wheat transgenic array comprising 995 NLRs from diverse grass species, combining expression signatures with high-efficiency transformation and large-scale phenotyping [9]. This approach successfully identified 31 new resistance NLRs (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust), demonstrating the practical application of expression-based screening.

Table: Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Expression Studies

Research Reagent	Function/Application	Experimental Context
NLRtracker pipeline	Genome-wide NLR identification and annotation	Used for mining NLR genes in Oleaceae genomes [24]
High-efficiency wheat transformation system	Rapid in planta validation of NLR candidates	Enabled testing of 995 NLRs in transgenic array [9]
NB-ARC domain HMM profile (PF00931)	Identification of NLR genes from proteome data	Standardized NLR mining across multiple studies [7] [4]
PlantCARE database	Prediction of cis-regulatory elements in promoter regions	Identified defense-related motifs in pepper NLR promoters [22]
RefPlantNLR collection	Reference set of ~500 experimentally validated NLRs	Comparative analysis and functional prediction [1]

The experimental workflow for establishing NLR expression thresholds involves multiple validation steps, from initial bioinformatic screening to functional confirmation in transgenic systems. The following diagram illustrates this integrated pipeline:

Expression Analysis Techniques

Comprehensive NLR expression profiling requires both quantitative and spatial-temporal resolution. RNA-seq transcriptome profiling of resistant and susceptible cultivars under pathogen challenge provides insights into NLR activation dynamics. In pepper, transcriptome analysis of Phytophthora capsici-infected plants identified 44 significantly differentially expressed NLR genes, with protein-protein interaction network analysis predicting key hubs in immune signaling [22]. These expression studies are complemented by promoter cis-regulatory element analysis, which in pepper revealed that 82.6% of NLR promoters (238 genes) contain binding sites for salicylic acid (SA) and/or jasmonic acid (JA) signaling pathways [22].

For copy number assessment, quantitative PCR and digital droplet PCR provide precise measurement of transgene copies, essential for correlating expression levels with functional outcomes. In the Mla7 barley system, crossing T1 families to develop F2 populations segregating for zero to four copies demonstrated that higher-order copies were required for resistance, with full recapitulation of native resistance only in lines with four copies [9]. This precise copy number quantification enabled researchers to establish clear expression thresholds for immune function.

Genomic and Evolutionary Context of NLR Regulation

Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Gene Families

The NLR gene family exhibits extraordinary diversity across plant species, with gene numbers ranging from approximately 50 in watermelon to over 1,000 in apple and hexaploid wheat [1]. This variation reflects lineage-specific expansions and contractions driven by tandem duplication and deletion events influenced by transposon content, ecological context, and environmental adaptation [1]. Different plant families exhibit distinct evolutionary patterns: consistent NLR expansion in Fabaceae species, contraction in Poaceae, and initial expansion followed by contraction in Brassicaceae [7].

Recent pangenome studies in Arabidopsis thaliana reveal that NLRs are diverse across multiple axes, requiring comprehensive metrics to fully capture their variation [18]. This "diversity in diversity generation" appears fundamental to maintaining functionally adaptive immune systems in plants [18]. The dynamic evolution of NLR genes is particularly evident in specific plant families:

• Oleaceae Family: Fraxinus (ash) species predominantly employ gene conservation strategies, while Olea (olive) species undergo extensive gene expansion through recent duplications and novel NLR gene family birth [24].
• Apiaceae Family: Comparative analysis of four species (Angelica sinensis, Coriandrum sativum, Apium graveolens, Daucus carota) revealed NLR numbers ranging from 95-183 genes, derived from 183 ancestral NLR lineages with varying contraction/expansion patterns [7].
• Asparagus Genus: Domesticated A. officinalis shows marked NLR contraction (27 NLRs) compared to wild relatives A. setaceus (63 NLRs) and A. kiusianus (47 NLRs), potentially explaining increased disease susceptibility in cultivated species [4].

Genomic Organization and Expression Regulation

NLR genes frequently display clustered genomic arrangements, often localized near telomeric regions with high recombination rates. In pepper, chromosomal distribution analysis revealed significant NLR clustering, with Chr09 harboring the highest density (63 NLRs) [22]. Evolutionary analysis demonstrated that tandem duplication serves as the primary driver of NLR family expansion in pepper, accounting for 18.4% of NLR genes (53/288), predominantly on Chr08 and Chr09 [22]. This clustering facilitates rapid generation of new resistance specificities through unequal crossing-over and recombination.

The following diagram illustrates the relationship between genomic organization, expression regulation, and functional outcomes in NLR genes:

Strategies for Optimizing NLR Expression in Crop Engineering

Balancing Resistance and Fitness

A primary challenge in deploying NLR genes for crop improvement involves achieving sufficient expression for resistance without incurring yield penalties. Several strategies have emerged to optimize this balance:

Promoter Selection: Native NLR promoters often maintain expression within appropriate physiological ranges, as evidenced by the success of using native promoters in NLR transfer experiments [9]. In cases where native promoters are unavailable, moderate-strength constitutive promoters or pathogen-inducible promoters may provide suitable alternatives.

Copy Number Optimization: As demonstrated with Mla7, multiple transgene copies may be necessary to achieve resistance thresholds [9]. However, copy number must be carefully calibrated, as excessively high copies may trigger silencing mechanisms or fitness costs. Stable single-copy insertion lines combined with strong promoters may offer more predictable expression profiles than variable multicopy insertions.

Gene Stacking Considerations: When pyramiding multiple NLRs, attention must be paid to potential cross-talk and expression competition. Helper NLRs, which are often highly expressed and exhibit tissue specificity [9], may require co-optimization with sensor NLRs to ensure proper function.

Expression-Guided NLR Discovery

The correlation between high expression and NLR functionality enables targeted identification of resistance candidates from genomic resources. Large-scale projects combining expression data with high-throughput functional validation accelerate the discovery of new resistances against evolving pathogens [9]. This approach is particularly valuable for accessing NLR diversity from wild crop relatives, which often contain resistance alleles lost during domestication.

In practice, expression-guided NLR discovery involves:

• Transcriptome sequencing from multiple tissues and developmental stages
• Identification of highly expressed NLR transcripts
• Phylogenetic placement relative to known functional NLRs
• Prioritization of candidates with complete domain architectures
• Validation through transformation and pathogen challenge

This pipeline has proven effective for identifying resistances against major wheat pathogens [9] and can be adapted across crop species.

The paradigm of NLR expression optimization has evolved significantly from initial assumptions that strict repression was necessary to avoid autoimmunity. Current evidence demonstrates that functional NLRs are frequently highly expressed and may require specific threshold levels for proper function. This understanding enables new approaches for NLR discovery and deployment in crop improvement programs.

Future research directions should address several key questions: How do expression thresholds vary between NLR classes and network configurations? What regulatory mechanisms maintain optimal NLR expression levels across different physiological conditions? How can spatial-temporal expression patterns be engineered to enhance resistance while minimizing fitness costs? Answering these questions will advance our fundamental understanding of plant immunity and provide practical tools for developing durable disease resistance in agricultural systems.

The integration of expression data with genomic, evolutionary, and functional studies creates a powerful framework for elucidating NLR biology within the broader context of plant immune system evolution. As genomic resources expand across plant species, expression-guided approaches will play an increasingly important role in unlocking the resistance potential encoded in both cultivated and wild plants.

Plant immunity relies on a sophisticated, multi-layered innate immune system that actively protects against pathogen invasion [1]. Plants coordinately use cell-surface and intracellular immune receptors to perceive pathogens and mount an immune response. Intracellular events of pathogen recognition are largely mediated by immune receptors of the nucleotide binding and leucine-rich-repeat (NLR) classes, which trigger a potent broad-spectrum immune reaction usually accompanied by a form of programmed cell death termed the hypersensitive response [1]. The helper-sensor NLR network architecture represents a crucial evolutionary innovation in plant immunity, providing robustness but also complexity to the plant immune system [86]. In this architecture, specialized "sensor" NLRs detect pathogen-secreted molecules, called effectors, while "helper" NLRs activate immune responses [86]. This functional specialization enables plants to effectively recognize diverse pathogens while maintaining signaling efficiency, though the molecular mechanisms governing sensor-helper communication remain poorly understood, limiting our ability to effectively deploy immune receptors in crops [86].

Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Networks

Genomic Expansion and Diversity

NLR genes represent one of the most diverse and rapidly evolving gene families in plants, exhibiting tremendous genetic innovation driven by constant evolutionary arms races with pathogens [1]. These genes show remarkable variation across plant species, ranging from approximately 50 NLRs in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus) to over 1,000 in apple (Malus domestica) and hexaploid wheat (Triticum aestivum) [1]. This diversity arises through several evolutionary mechanisms:

• Tandem duplication: The primary driver of NLR family expansion, particularly in specific genomic regions [11]
• Segmental duplication: Larger-scale duplication events contributing to NLR diversity [11]
• Positive selection: Rapid evolution in response to pathogen pressure [1]
• Domain shuffling and fusion: Creation of new functional combinations [87]

Recent studies have revealed that NLRs exhibit lineage-specific expansions and contractions influenced by transposon content, ecological context, and environmental adaptation [1]. This dynamic evolution has resulted in the emergence of complex NLR networks with sophisticated signaling capabilities.

Helper NLR Classification and Evolution

Helper NLRs primarily belong to the RPW8-NB-ARC-LRR (RNL) subfamily, which itself demonstrates remarkable evolutionary dynamics [3]. The RNL subfamily originated from the fusion of an RPW8 domain to a NB-ARC domain of CNL, representing an evolutionary swap that created specialized signaling components [3]. In angiosperms, RNLs are subdivided into two main subclades based on homology to either NRG1 (N-required gene 1) or ADR1 (activated disease resistance gene 1) [3]. Conifers exhibit an even more diverse RNL repertoire with four distinct groups, two of which differ from angiosperms, suggesting lineage-specific adaptations [3].

Table 1: Helper NLR Subfamilies and Their Characteristics

Subfamily	Representative Members	Key Functions	Distribution	Special Features
RNL-NRG1	NRG1 (Nicotiana benthamiana)	TMV resistance, immune signaling	Angiosperms	Conserved RNBS-D and MHD motifs
RNL-ADR1	ADR1 (Arabidopsis thaliana)	Pathogen resistance, drought tolerance	Angiosperms	Broader stress responsiveness
Conifer-specific RNLs	Multiple groups	Immune signaling, drought response	Conifers	Expanded repertoire, unique motifs

Experimental Approaches for Studying NLR Networks

Genome-Wide Identification of NLR Genes

Comprehensive identification of NLR genes is fundamental to understanding helper-sensor networks. The following protocol outlines a standardized pipeline for NLR identification:

Step 1: Sequence Retrieval

• Retrieve reference NLR protein sequences from databases such as TAIR for Arabidopsis or other species-specific databases [11]
• Obtain the target proteome for analysis from appropriate genomic resources [11]

Step 2: Homology-Based Identification

• Perform BLASTp searches against the target proteome using known NLR sequences as queries [11]
• Conduct HMMER searches (v3.3.2) using core NLR domains (PF00931) with an E-value cutoff of 1×10^5 [11]
• Retain candidate sequences containing NB-ARC domains for further analysis [11]

Step 3: Domain Validation and Classification

• Validate candidates using NCBI CDD (cd00204 for NB-ARC) and Pfam batch search [11]
• Check for presence/completeness of N-terminal (TIR, CC, RPW8) and C-terminal (LRR) domains [11]
• Classify NLRs into subfamilies (TNL, CNL, RNL) based on domain architecture [11]

Step 4: Phylogenetic Analysis

• Align NB-ARC domain sequences using Muscle v5 [11]
• Construct Maximum Likelihood trees in IQ-TREE with 1000 bootstrap replicates [11]
• Use known NLRs from related species as outgroups for phylogenetic placement [11]

For complex polyploid genomes, specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek (Diploidy-Assisted Annotation of Polyploid NLRs) have been developed to accurately predict and annotate NLR genes, addressing challenges posed by genome complexity [47].

Transcriptional Profiling of NLR Networks

Understanding NLR network dynamics requires assessment of gene expression under various conditions:

RNA-seq Analysis Protocol:

• Sample Preparation: Collect tissue from both infected and control plants at multiple time points post-inoculation [11]
• Library Preparation and Sequencing: Prepare libraries using standard protocols and sequence on platforms such as Illumina [11]
• Read Processing: Map clean reads to the reference genome using Hisat2 [11]
• Differential Expression: Calculate FPKM values and identify differentially expressed genes using DESeq2 with |log2 Fold Change| ≥ 1 and FDR < 0.05 as thresholds [11]
• Functional Analysis: Perform GO and KEGG enrichment analysis to identify significantly enriched functional categories (p < 0.05) [11]

Protein-Protein Interaction Studies

Elucidating physical interactions within NLR networks is crucial for understanding signaling mechanisms:

PPI Network Analysis:

• Predict interactions using STRING database with confidence score >0.4 [11]
• Validate interactions through co-immunoprecipitation and bimolecular fluorescence complementation assays
• Identify hub proteins through network topology analysis [11]

Diagram 1: Basic NLR network signaling (55 characters)

Molecular Mechanisms of Sensor-Helper Communication

Signaling Specificity and Determinants

The molecular dialogue between sensor and helper NLRs involves precise compatibility determinants that ensure specific immune activation while preventing inappropriate signaling. Current research has identified several key mechanisms:

Domain-Specific Interactions:

• Specific residues and domains govern signaling specificity between sensor and helper NLRs [86]
• The NB-ARC domain mediates critical conformational changes through ADP/ATP exchange [1]
• LRR domains supervise recognition functions and maintain autoinhibitory intramolecular interactions [1]

Key Molecular Signatures:

• RNBS-D motif variations (e.g., CFLDLGxFP in RNLs) enable subfamily discrimination [3]
• MHD motif compositions differ between subfamilies (QHD in RNLs vs. conventional MHD in other NLRs) [3]
• Integrated domains (IDs) function as pathogen sensor decoys, expanding recognition capabilities [87]

Table 2: Molecular Determinants of NLR Compatibility

Molecular Feature	Location	Function in Compatibility	Experimental Evidence
RNBS-D motif	NB-ARC domain	Subfamily-specific signaling	Motif swapping alters specificity [3]
MHD motif	NB-ARC domain	Nucleotide binding regulation	QHD signature unique to RNLs [3]
N-terminal domain	Signaling domain	Determines downstream pathway	Domain swaps functional [1]
LRR domain	C-terminal	Protein interaction interface	Chimeric studies [11]
Integrated domains	Various	Effector recognition decoys	Expanded recognition spectrum [87]

Network Architecture and Immune Signaling

Helper-sensor NLR networks exhibit diverse architectural configurations that influence their signaling properties:

Singleton NLRs:

• Multifunctional receptors combining pathogen detection and immune signaling
• Follow classical gene-for-gene resistance model [1]

NLR Pairs:

• Specialized sensor-helper combinations with one-to-one functional connections
• Provide specific resistance against defined pathogens [1]

NLR Networks:

• Complex many-to-one and one-to-many sensor-helper connections
• Increase robustness and evolvability of the immune system [1]
• Allow integrated responses to multiple pathogens

Diagram 2: NLR network architectures (52 characters)

Research Reagent Solutions for NLR Network Studies

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents for NLR Network Analysis

Reagent/Tool	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Key Features
NLR Identification Pipelines	NLRtracker [24], DaapNLRSeek [47]	Genome-wide NLR annotation	Handles complex genomes, classifies subfamilies
Sequence Enrichment	RenSeq (Resistance gene enrichment sequencing) [87]	Targeted NLR sequencing	Overcomes genome complexity, captures diversity
Expression Analysis	RNA-seq, RT-qPCR primers	Transcriptional profiling	Identifies responsive NLRs, network dynamics
Interaction Validation	Co-IP kits, BiFC vectors	Protein-protein interaction studies	Confirms sensor-helper interactions
Structural Analysis	SWISS-MODEL [11]	Protein structure prediction	Models conformational changes
Plant Transformation	Agrobacterium strains, CRISPR-Cas9	Functional validation	Tests NLR function and compatibility
Pathogen Assays	Phytophthora capsici [11], Xylella fastidiosa [24]	Disease resistance phenotyping	Measures immune response outcomes

Emerging Research Directions and Applications

Network Engineering for Crop Improvement

Understanding helper-sensor NLR networks opens exciting possibilities for engineering disease resistance in crops:

Pathway Engineering Strategies:

• Sensor domain swapping: Creating novel recognition specificities while maintaining helper compatibility [1]
• Helper network expansion: Enhancing signaling capacity against multiple pathogens [86]
• Compatibility interface optimization: Designing optimized sensor-helper pairs for predictable signaling [86]

Synthetic Biology Approaches:

• Designer NLR arrays: Engineering synthetic NLR clusters with tailored specificities [1]
• Orthogonal signaling systems: Creating synthetic helper-sensor pairs that avoid cross-talk with endogenous networks [1]
• Inducible control systems: Implementing chemical or environmental control over NLR activation [1]

Evolutionary Insights and Adaptive Breeding

Comparative genomics across plant lineages reveals fundamental principles of NLR network evolution:

Conservation vs. Expansion Strategies:

• Fraxinus species (ash trees): Exhibit predominant gene conservation strategy with specialized immune responses [24]
• Olea species (olives): Demonstrate extensive gene expansion through recent duplications and novel NLR family birth [24]
• Conifers: Possess exceptionally diverse RNL repertoires with unique groups not found in angiosperms [3]

These evolutionary differences reflect adaptive strategies balancing pathogen recognition breadth with energy efficiency. Species facing diverse pathogen pressures (like olives) tend toward NLR expansion, while those with specialized pathogen threats (like ash trees) often maintain conserved, refined NLR networks [24].

Diagram 3: NLR research workflow (47 characters)

Helper-sensor NLR networks represent a sophisticated evolutionary solution to the challenge of pathogen detection and immune signaling in plants. The molecular mechanisms governing sensor-helper communication involve precise compatibility determinants that ensure specific immune activation while preventing inappropriate signaling. Understanding these networks at structural, functional, and evolutionary levels provides unprecedented opportunities for engineering disease resistance in crops. Future research directions include comprehensive structural characterization of sensor-helper interfaces, evolutionary analysis of network dynamics across plant lineages, and development of synthetic biology approaches for designing optimized NLR networks with enhanced disease resistance capabilities.

Proving Function and Predicting Success: Validation and Comparative Genomic Strategies

Plant immunity is a dynamic field where transcriptomic analyses have become indispensable for elucidating the molecular mechanisms underlying disease resistance. A central component of the plant immune system is the nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) gene family, which encodes intracellular receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and initiate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [88]. Plant pan-NLRomes—the complete sets of NLR genes within a species—exhibit extraordinary genetic diversity, driven by constant co-evolutionary arms races with pathogens [88] [18]. This diversity manifests not only in sequence variation but also in dramatic differences in NLR expression patterns between resistant and susceptible genotypes.

Differential expression analysis via RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) provides a powerful tool to investigate how transcriptional reprogramming contributes to disease resistance. By comparing global gene expression patterns in resistant versus susceptible hosts following pathogen challenge, researchers can identify key defense-related genes, regulatory pathways, and expression signatures associated with effective immune responses. These analyses are particularly valuable for understanding the functional consequences of NLR gene evolution and for identifying candidate resistance genes for crop improvement [9] [4]. This technical guide explores experimental design, methodologies, and analytical frameworks for conducting robust differential expression analyses within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution in plants.

Experimental Design and Workflow

Key Considerations for Experimental Design

A well-designed transcriptomics experiment is crucial for generating meaningful, biologically relevant data. The following elements require careful planning:

• Genotype Selection: Choose well-characterized resistant and susceptible genotypes with clearly contrasting phenotypes. Ideally, these should be related lines or near-isogenic lines to minimize background genetic variation [89] [90].
• Pathogen Inoculation: Use standardized inoculation protocols with appropriate controls (e.g., mock inoculation). The pathogen strain, inoculum concentration, and inoculation method must be consistent across biological replicates [91] [92].
• Time-Course Sampling: Defense responses are dynamic. Include multiple time points post-inoculation to capture early, mid, and late response phases. Critical time points vary by pathosystem but often include early intervals (e.g., 2, 4, 8, 24, 48, 72 hours post-inoculation) [89] [91] [92].
• Biological Replication: A minimum of three independent biological replicates per condition is essential for statistical robustness. Each replicate should originate from an independently grown and treated plant [89] [90].
• Tissue Specificity: Sample the tissue most relevant to the pathogen interaction. For many foliar pathogens, this includes leaf tissues harvested from consistent nodal positions [92].

Visualizing the Experimental Workflow

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for a differential transcriptomics study, from experimental design through data interpretation:

Core Methodologies and Protocols

RNA Extraction and Sequencing

High-quality RNA is the foundation of reliable transcriptome data. The following protocols are commonly employed:

RNA Extraction Protocol:

• Tissue Harvesting: Flash-freeze tissue samples in liquid nitrogen immediately after collection to preserve RNA integrity [92].
• Homogenization: Grind frozen tissue to a fine powder under liquid nitrogen using a pre-chilled mortar and pestle or bead mill.
• RNA Isolation: Use established kits such as TRIzol reagent or silica-membrane columns. Include DNase I treatment to remove genomic DNA contamination.
• Quality Control: Assess RNA integrity using Agilent Bioanalyzer or TapeStation. Accept only samples with RNA Integrity Number (RIN) > 8.0 [93].
• Quantification: Precisely quantify RNA using fluorometric methods (e.g., Qubit) rather than spectrophotometry alone.

Library Preparation and Sequencing:

• Library Construction: Use strand-specific mRNA-seq library prep kits (e.g., Illumina TruSeq Stranded mRNA) that preserve strand information. Poly-A selection is standard for eukaryotic mRNA enrichment [89] [93].
• Sequencing Platform: Illumina platforms (NextSeq, NovaSeq) are most common. Aim for 25-50 million paired-end reads (2×150 bp) per sample for adequate coverage [93] [90].
• Quality Metrics: Validate final libraries using fragment analyzers and quantify by qPCR for accurate pooling.

Bioinformatics Analysis Pipeline

A standardized bioinformatics workflow ensures reproducible identification of differentially expressed genes (DEGs):

Read Processing and Alignment:

• Quality Control: Use FastQC for initial quality assessment and MultiQC for aggregate reporting.
• Trimming and Filtering: Employ Trimmomatic or Cutadapt to remove adapter sequences and low-quality bases.
• Alignment: Map cleaned reads to the reference genome using splice-aware aligners such as STAR or HISAT2 [93] [90]. For non-model organisms without reference genomes, a de novo transcriptome assembly approach (e.g., Trinity) may be necessary.

Expression Quantification and Differential Analysis:

• Read Counting: Use featureCounts or HTSeq-count to assign reads to genomic features. Transcript-level quantification with Salmon or Kallisto provides an alternative approach.
• Differential Expression: Perform statistical analysis with R/Bioconductor packages DESeq2 or edgeR, which model count data using negative binomial distributions and account for biological variability [89] [93]. Apply multiple testing correction (e.g., Benjamini-Hochberg) to control false discovery rate (FDR).
• DEG Criteria: Typically, genes with FDR-adjusted p-value (padj) < 0.05 and absolute log2 fold change > 1 are considered significantly differentially expressed.

Key Signaling Pathways in Plant Immunity

Transcriptomic studies consistently reveal specific defense pathways that are differentially activated in resistant versus susceptible genotypes. The following diagram illustrates the core signaling network:

Quantitative Data from Transcriptomic Studies

Differentially Expressed Genes in Various Pathosystems

Table 1: Summary of DEGs Identified in Recent Plant-Pathogen Transcriptomics Studies

Plant Species	Pathogen	Resistant Genotype	Susceptible Genotype	DEGs in Resistant	DEGs in Susceptible	Key References
Medicago truncatula	Ascochyta medicaginicola (SBS)	HM078	A17	192	2,908	[89]
Wheat	Fusarium pseudograminearum (FCR)	X413	X73	Fewer DEGs	More DEGs	[91]
Banana	Banana bunchy top virus (BBTV)	Wild M. balbisiana	M. acuminata 'Lakatan'	213	161	[93]
Wheat	Fusarium graminearum (FHB)	Nyubai, Wuhan 1, HC374	Shaw	220 (resistance-associated)	2,270 (susceptibility-associated)	[90]
Bletilla striata	Coleosporium bletiae (rust)	BJ-11	Guibai 4	Faster, stronger defense response	Delayed, weaker defense response	[92]

NLR Expression Patterns and Functional Classification

Table 2: NLR Gene Family Characteristics Across Plant Species

Plant Species	Total NLR Genes	CNL Subfamily	TNL Subfamily	RNL Subfamily	Expression Features	Evolutionary Pattern
Asparagus officinalis (cultivated)	27	Majority	Minority	Present	Limited induction post-infection	Significant contraction
Asparagus setaceus (wild)	63	Majority	Minority	Present	Strong pathogen response	Ancestral state
Angelica sinensis (Apiaceae)	95	All three present	All three present	All three present	Not specified	Contraction after expansion
Coriandrum sativum (Apiaceae)	183	All three present	All three present	All three present	Not specified	Expansion then contraction
Arabidopsis thaliana	3,789 (pangenome)	Variable	Variable	Variable	Functional NLRs often highly expressed	Extensive variation between accessions

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Reagent Solutions for Transcriptomics of Plant-Pathogen Interactions

Reagent/Category	Specific Examples	Function/Application	Technical Notes
RNA Extraction Kits	TRIzol, Qiagen RNeasy Plant Mini Kit	High-quality RNA isolation from challenging plant tissues	Include DNase I treatment; assess RIN >8.0
Library Prep Kits	Illumina TruSeq Stranded mRNA	Strand-specific RNA-seq library construction	Poly-A selection for mRNA enrichment
Sequencing Platforms	Illumina NextSeq 500/550, NovaSeq	High-throughput sequencing	25-50M paired-end reads per sample (2×150 bp)
Alignment Software	STAR, HISAT2	Splice-aware read alignment to reference genome	STAR better for well-annotated genomes
Differential Expression Tools	DESeq2, edgeR	Statistical analysis of DEGs	Uses negative binomial distribution models
Functional Enrichment Tools	clusterProfiler, WGCNA	Gene ontology, pathway analysis, co-expression networks	Identify biologically meaningful patterns
Pathogen Culture Media	Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA), Carboxymethyl Cellulose (CMC)	Fungal culture and spore production	CMC liquid medium enhances sporulation

Data Interpretation and Validation

Functional Analysis of Differential Expression Results

Beyond identifying DEGs, functional interpretation is crucial for biological insight:

• Gene Ontology (GO) Enrichment: Identify biological processes, molecular functions, and cellular compartments overrepresented among DEGs. Resistant genotypes often show enrichment for "defense response," "signal transduction," "cell wall modification," and "secondary metabolite biosynthesis" [89] [92].
• Pathway Analysis: Map DEGs to reference pathways (KEGG, Plant Reactome). Key defense pathways include phenylpropanoid biosynthesis, lignin metabolism, flavonoid biosynthesis, and hormone signal transduction [91] [92].
• Transcription Factor Analysis: Identify differentially expressed TFs (WRKY, MYB, NAC, bZIP, ERF families) that orchestrate defense responses [93] [90].
• Co-expression Network Analysis: Using weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) to identify modules of co-expressed genes correlated with resistance traits. This approach can reveal hub genes with potentially central regulatory roles [91].

Integration with NLR Biology

Transcriptomic data should be interpreted within the evolutionary context of NLR genes:

• NLR Expression Signatures: Functional NLRs often show higher steady-state expression levels in uninfected plants compared to non-functional counterparts. This signature can help prioritize candidate NLRs for validation [9].
• Expression Thresholds: Some NLRs require minimum expression thresholds for functionality, as demonstrated with barley Mla alleles where multiple copies were needed for resistance [9].
• Evolutionary Patterns: Domesticated crops often show NLR repertoire contraction and altered expression patterns compared to wild relatives, contributing to increased susceptibility [4].

Candidate Gene Validation

Transcriptomics generates hypotheses that require functional validation:

• Reverse Genetics: Use virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS), CRISPR-Cas9, or T-DNA insertion mutants to validate candidate gene functions.
• Heterologous Expression: Transfer candidate NLRs into susceptible genotypes to test for resistance complementation [9].
• Molecular Assays: Quantitative PCR validation of key DEGs, protein localization studies, and protein-protein interaction assays to delineate mechanisms.

Differential expression analysis provides a powerful framework for understanding the molecular basis of disease resistance and its relationship to NLR gene evolution. The integration of transcriptomics with evolutionary genetics reveals how NLR diversity—both in sequence and expression—underlies adaptation to pathogen pressure. Future directions in the field include single-cell RNA-seq to resolve spatial expression patterns, long-read sequencing to fully characterize NLR transcript diversity, and integration of pan-NLRome data with expression atlases to predict functional resistance genes across plant species. These approaches will accelerate the identification and deployment of NLR genes for crop improvement, ultimately contributing to sustainable agricultural production.

Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs) form complex protein-protein interaction networks that constitute the core of the plant immune system. These intracellular immune receptors operate not as isolated units but through sophisticated sensor-helper networks and oligomeric signaling complexes to provide robust pathogen recognition and defense activation. This technical guide examines the architecture, evolution, and experimental methodologies for characterizing NLR interaction networks, with emphasis on identifying key hub NLRs and their signaling partners. Understanding these networks provides crucial insights for engineering disease resistance in crops and reveals fundamental principles of plant immunity organization within the broader context of NLR gene family evolution.

Plant NLRs have evolved from singleton receptors to complex networked configurations through continuous co-evolution with rapidly adapting pathogens [1]. This evolutionary arms race has driven tremendous genetic innovation, making NLR-encoding genes among the most diverse and rapidly evolving genes in plant genomes [1]. The transition from individual NLR genes to higher-order network configurations represents a key adaptation in plant immunity, allowing for increased robustness, evolvability, and resilience to pathogen perturbation [1] [94].

NLR networks function through specialized sensor and helper NLRs, where sensor NLRs mediate pathogen perception and activate downstream helper NLRs that execute immune signaling [1]. Unlike simple NLR pairs that operate in one-to-one sensor-helper relationships, complex NLR networks exhibit many-to-one and one-to-many functional connections, creating a web of interactions that enhances the system's robustness and adaptability [1]. This network architecture enables plants to mount effective immune responses against diverse pathogens while maintaining regulatory control to avoid detrimental autoimmunity, which can strongly affect plant growth and yield [37].

NLR Network Architectures and Molecular Mechanisms

Structural Basis of NLR Interactions

NLR proteins function as molecular switches that exist in an inactive ADP-bound resting state and transition to an active ATP-bound state upon pathogen perception [1]. This activation triggers significant conformational changes that enable oligomerization and formation of signaling-competent complexes known as resistosomes [54]. The N-terminal domains of NLRs play crucial roles in both partner selection and downstream signaling [94].

Plant NLRs exhibit diverse N-terminal signaling domains that largely determine their signaling specificities and network partnerships. These include:

• Coiled-coil (CC)-type: Common in monocots and dicots, often forming calcium-permeable channels upon activation [1] [54]
• TIR-type: Possessing NADase activity that generates signaling molecules [1] [54]
• RPW8-type (CCR): Functioning primarily as helper NLRs [1]
• G10-type CC (CCG10): A distinct subclass with specialized functions [1]

Table 1: Major NLR Classes and Their Characteristics

NLR Class	N-terminal Domain	Key Signaling Mechanism	Evolutionary Distribution
CNL	Coiled-coil	Oligomerizes to form cation channels	Monocots and dicots
TNL	Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor	NADase activity producing signaling molecules	Primarily dicots
RNL	RPW8-type coiled-coil	Helper NLRs, signal transduction	All angiosperms
CG10-NLR	G10-type coiled-coil	Specialized functions	Lineage-specific expansions

Network Topologies and Signaling Mechanisms

NLR immune networks operate through several well-characterized mechanisms:

Sensor-Helper Networks: Sensor NLRs directly or indirectly recognize pathogen effectors and activate helper NLRs, which execute immune signaling [1]. This division of labor allows for efficient pathogen recognition and signal amplification while reducing the fitness costs associated with immune activation [37].

Oligomerization-Based Activation: Upon pathogen perception, NLRs undergo nucleotide-dependent conformational changes that enable oligomerization into resistosomes [54] [94]. CC-type NLRs like ZAR1 and Sr35 form calcium-permeable channels that initiate downstream signaling [54], while TIR-type NLRs oligomerize into tetramers with NADase activity that produces small molecule immune mediators [54].

Integrated Decoy Networks: Many sensor NLRs contain integrated decoy domains that mimic pathogen virulence targets, enabling direct effector recognition [37] [95]. These integrated domains can be fused to various positions within the NLR architecture and provide specificity for recognizing diverse pathogen effectors [95].

Quantitative Analysis of NLR Family Distribution

The composition and complexity of NLR networks vary substantially across plant species, influenced by factors such as genome size, life history, and pathogen pressure [37]. Comparative genomic analyses reveal striking differences in NLR repertoire sizes:

Table 2: NLR Gene Repertoire Size Across Plant Species

Plant Species	Common Name	NLR Count	Genome Size (Mb)	Special Features
Carica papaya	Papaya	50-100	~370	Minimalist NLR repertoire
Arabidopsis thaliana	Thale cress	~200	~135	Model for NLR studies
Oryza sativa	Rice	>500	~430	Monocot representative
Vitis vinifera	Grape	>500	~500	Dicot with expanded NLRs
Malus domestica	Apple	~1000	~740	Woody perennial expansion
Triticum aestivum	Bread wheat	>2000	~16,000	Polyploid expansion

The expansion of NLR gene families in woody plants like apple may compensate for their infrequent meiosis and long generation times [37]. Polyploidy also contributes to NLR expansion, as evidenced by the extensive NLR repertoire in hexaploid wheat [37]. However, immediate expansions following polyploidization are often followed by pseudogenization of many NLR copies [37].

Experimental Protocols for NLR Network Analysis

Genome-Wide NLR Identification and Classification

Protocol 1: Computational Identification of NLR Genes

• Sequence Retrieval: Obtain genomic and proteomic data from relevant databases (PlantGARDEN, Dryad Digital Repository, Phytozome) [4].
• HMM-based Mining: Use NLRtracker or similar pipelines with Hidden Markov Models of the NB-ARC domain (PF00931) for initial identification [24] [4].
• Domain Architecture Analysis: Validate candidates using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search to confirm presence of NB-ARC domain (E-value ≤ 1e-5) [4].
• Classification: Categorize NLRs into subfamilies (CNL, TNL, RNL) based on N-terminal domains using Pfam and PRGdb 4.0 databases [4].
• Chromosomal Mapping: Determine genomic distribution and clustering patterns using TBtools or BEDTools, noting clusters of ≤8 genes as potential evolutionary units [4].

Protocol 2: Phylogenetic and Evolutionary Analysis

• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Use Clustal Omega or MAFFT with NLR protein sequences [4].
• Phylogenetic Reconstruction: Construct maximum likelihood trees using MEGA (JTT matrix-based model) with 1000 bootstrap replicates [4].
• Orthogroup Analysis: Identify orthologous NLR genes across species using OrthoFinder v2.2.7 [4].
• Selection Pressure Analysis: Calculate nonsynonymous/synonymous substitution rates (dN/dS) to identify sites under diversifying selection [37].

Protein-Protein Interaction Mapping

Protocol 3: Experimental Validation of NLR Interactions

• Yeast Two-Hybrid (Y2H) Screening:

  • Clone NLR coding sequences into bait and prey vectors
  • Test pairwise interactions between sensor and helper NLR candidates
  • Include both full-length proteins and individual domains (N-terminal, NB-ARC, LRR) [94] [95]

• Co-immunoprecipitation (Co-IP):

  • Express tagged NLR proteins in Nicotiana benthamiana or protoplasts
  • Immunoprecipitate using tag-specific antibodies
  • Identify co-precipitating partners via mass spectrometry or immunoblotting [95]

• Bimolecular Fluorescence Complementation (BiFC):

  • Split YFP fragments fused to potential interacting NLRs
  • Co-express in plant cells and monitor fluorescence reconstitution
  • Determine subcellular localization of interactions [95]

Protocol 4: In Silico Prediction of NLR-Effector Interactions

• Structure Prediction: Use AlphaFold2-Multimer to predict NLRLRR-effector complex structures [96].
• Binding Analysis: Calculate binding affinities and energies using machine learning models from Area-Affinity [96].
• Interaction Classification: Apply the NLR-Effector Interaction Classification (NEIC) resource to identify high-probability interactions [96].
• Experimental Validation: Prioritize predicted interactions for functional validation via Y2H or Co-IP [96].

Figure 1: Experimental workflow for NLR network analysis depicting key stages from gene identification to network modeling

Signaling Pathways in NLR Networks

NLR activation triggers carefully orchestrated signaling cascades that differ between NLR classes:

TNL Signaling Pathway:

• Effector perception induces TNL oligomerization
• Oligomeric TNLs exhibit NADase activity, producing signaling molecules
• Small molecules are detected by EDS1-PAD4 or EDS1-SAG101 complexes
• EDS1 complexes activate helper RNLs (NRG1s, ADR1s)
• Helper NLRs execute immune responses including hypersensitive response [54]

CNL Signaling Pathway:

• Effector recognition triggers CNL activation and oligomerization
• Oligomeric CNLs form calcium-permeable cation channels
• Calcium influx initiates downstream signaling cascades
• MAP kinase activation and reactive oxygen species burst
• Defense gene expression and programmed cell death [54] [95]

Figure 2: Core signaling pathways for TNL and CNL receptor classes showing convergence on immune outputs

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for NLR Network Studies

Reagent/Tool	Function/Application	Key Features	Example Use
NLRtracker	Genome-wide NLR identification	HMM-based pipeline, standardized annotation	Comparative genomics across species [24]
AlphaFold2-Multimer	NLR-effector structure prediction	Predicts complex structures with high accuracy	In silico interaction mapping [96]
Area-Affinity ML Models	Binding affinity/energy calculation	97 machine learning models for interaction strength	Prioritizing interactions for validation [96]
OrthoFinder	Orthologous group identification	Sequence similarity-based clustering	Evolutionary analysis of NLR networks [4]
PlantCARE	cis-element prediction	Identifies regulatory elements in promoters	Understanding NLR expression regulation [4]
WoLF PSORT	Subcellular localization prediction	Protein sequence-based localization	Determining NLR compartmentalization [4]

Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Networks

NLR networks exhibit remarkable evolutionary dynamics driven by host-pathogen co-evolution. Several mechanisms generate diversity in NLR repertoires:

Birth-and-Death Evolution: New NLR genes arise through duplication, while others are deleted or become pseudogenes [37]. This process creates substantial intraspecific diversity through presence-absence variation and heterogeneous allelic variation [1].

Tandem Duplication and Ectopic Recombination: NLR genes are frequently organized in clusters resulting from tandem duplication, facilitating the emergence of new specificities through unequal crossing-over and gene conversion [37] [24].

Integrated Domain Acquisition: NLRs acquire novel integrated domains that mimic pathogen virulence targets, creating new recognition specificities through domain shuffling and fusion events [37] [95].

Lineage-Specific Expansions and Contractions: Different plant lineages show distinct patterns of NLR expansion and contraction influenced by their ecological contexts and pathogen pressures [1] [24]. For example, Oleaceae species show enhanced pseudogenization of TNLs and expansion of CCG10-NLRs [24], while asparagus species demonstrate marked NLR repertoire contraction during domestication [4].

The study of NLR protein-protein interaction networks has revealed sophisticated immune mechanisms operating through carefully orchestrated molecular partnerships. Identifying key hub NLRs and their signaling partners provides crucial insights for engineering durable disease resistance in crops. Future research directions should include:

• Comprehensive Interactome Mapping: Systematic characterization of NLR interactions across diverse plant species and families
• Structural Network Analysis: High-resolution structural studies of NLR complexes and resistosomes
• Single-Cell Network Profiling: Understanding cell-type-specific NLR network configurations
• Evolutionary Network Modeling: Reconstructing how NLR networks evolve across plant phylogeny
• Synthetic NLR Engineering: Designing minimal, optimized NLR networks for crop protection

The integration of computational predictions, structural biology, and functional genomics will continue to unravel the complexity of NLR networks, advancing both fundamental knowledge and applications in crop improvement.

The Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) gene family constitutes a cornerstone of the plant innate immune system, encoding intracellular receptors that initiate effector-triggered immunity (ETI) upon pathogen recognition [11]. These genes represent one of the most dynamic and rapidly evolving gene families in plant genomes, characterized by remarkable structural variation and complex genomic organization. Their evolution is driven by an incessant co-evolutionary arms race between plants and their pathogens, necessitating continuous adaptation to recognize rapidly evolving pathogen effectors [97]. This evolutionary pressure has resulted in NLR genes being frequently organized in complex genomic clusters, a structural arrangement that facilitates the generation of novel recognition specificities through mechanisms such as tandem duplication, unequal crossing-over, and gene conversion [53] [97].

Within this context, synteny and orthology analyses emerge as indispensable computational tools for deciphering the evolutionary history and functional conservation of NLR genes across plant species. Synteny—the conserved order of genetic loci on chromosomes of related species—provides a phylogenetic framework for tracing the evolutionary trajectories of NLR genes beyond simple sequence similarity [98]. Meanwhile, orthology analysis distinguishes genes that diverged due to speciation events from those that arose through gene duplication, enabling the identification of functionally equivalent NLR genes across different species [4] [30]. Together, these approaches allow researchers to transcend the limitations of sequence-based comparisons alone and reconstruct the deep evolutionary history of the plant immune system, identifying conserved NLR loci that have persisted through millions of years of evolution while also revealing lineage-specific adaptations that contribute to species-specific resistance profiles.

Methodological Framework: Analytical Approaches for NLR Comparative Genomics

Core Concepts and Definitions

Synteny analysis examines the conserved arrangement of genetic loci across related genomes, revealing regions descended from a common ancestral region. For NLR genes, this approach helps distinguish orthologous relationships from homoplasious similarities resulting from convergent evolution [98]. Microsynteny refines this concept by focusing on small genomic regions with conserved gene order, often revealing evolutionary relationships obscured at larger genomic scales [98].

Orthology analysis identifies genes originating from a common ancestral gene in the last common ancestor of the species compared, which often retain similar functions. This contrasts with paralogy, where genes arise from duplication events and may undergo neofunctionalization or subfunctionalization [4] [30]. In NLR genomics, these distinctions are crucial for predicting gene function across species and identifying core immune components versus lineage-specific innovations.

Computational Tools and Pipelines

A robust toolkit has been developed specifically for NLR synteny and orthology analysis, combining general comparative genomics tools with specialized applications:

Table 1: Essential Computational Tools for NLR Synteny and Orthology Analysis

Tool Name	Primary Function	Key Features	Application in NLR Studies
MCScanX	Synteny detection	Identifies collinear blocks, differentiates duplication types	Integrated in TBtools for visualization of NLR clusters [11] [30]
OrthoFinder	Orthogroup inference	Graph-based algorithm, scalable for large genomes	Clustering orthologous NLR genes across species [4] [84]
Dual Synteny Plotter (TBtools)	Visualization	Comparative synteny maps between species	Identifying conserved NLR loci between pepper/tomato [11]
NLRtracker	NLR-specific annotation	Pipeline for genome-wide NLR identification	Mining NLR genes across Oleaceae family genomes [24]
NLGenomeSweeper	NLR annotation	Focus on complete NB-ARC domains	Annotating NLR genes with emphasis on functional genes [97]

The integration of these tools creates a powerful workflow for comprehensive NLR analysis. A typical pipeline begins with genome-wide identification using HMMER searches with the NB-ARC domain (PF00931) as query, followed by domain architecture analysis with InterProScan or NCBI CDD to classify NLRs into subfamilies (CNL, TNL, RNL) [11] [4] [84]. Subsequently, synteny analysis with MCScanX identifies collinear blocks containing NLR genes, while orthology analysis with OrthoFinder groups NLRs into orthogroups based on sequence similarity and phylogenetic relationships [4] [84]. Finally, visualization tools like Advanced Circos in TBtools create publication-quality figures illustrating syntenic relationships [11].

Figure 1: Workflow for NLR Synteny and Orthology Analysis

Advanced Classification Through Microsynteny Networks

Recent advances have introduced microsynteny network analysis as a powerful approach for NLR classification and evolutionary inference. This method examines conservation of gene order in immediate genomic neighborhoods surrounding NLR genes, often revealing deeper evolutionary relationships than sequence similarity alone [98]. By analyzing microsynteny across 124 angiosperm genomes, researchers have established a refined NLR classification system that divides CNLs into three distinct subclasses (CNLA, CNLB, CNL_C) alongside TNL and RNL categories [98].

This classification system has proven particularly valuable for resolving long-standing puzzles in NLR evolution, such as the mysterious absence of TNL genes in monocots. Microsynteny evidence demonstrates clear correspondence between non-TNLs in monocots and the supposedly "extinct" TNL subclass in eudicots, providing a model for understanding the evolutionary fate of these genes [98]. The synteny network approach revealed that the largest connected component included 18,322 nodes (85.2% of total NLR nodes), demonstrating extensive conservation of genomic context despite rapid sequence evolution [98].

Key Research Applications and Findings

Comparative Genomics in Crop Plants

Synteny and orthology analyses have revealed striking patterns of NLR evolution across major crop families, providing insights for disease resistance breeding:

In the Solanaceae family, comprehensive analysis of the pepper (Capsicum annuum) NLR repertoire identified 288 canonical NLR genes with significant clustering near telomeric regions, particularly on chromosome 09 which harbored 63 NLRs—the highest density observed [11]. Tandem duplication was identified as the primary driver of NLR family expansion in pepper, accounting for 18.4% (53/288) of NLR genes, with most tandem duplicates concentrated on chromosomes 08 and 09 [11]. Synteny analysis between resistant and susceptible pepper cultivars identified 44 differentially expressed NLR genes during Phytophthora capsici infection, with protein-protein interaction network analysis predicting Caz01g22900 and Caz09g03820 as potential hub genes [11].

In the Poaceae family, comparative analysis of sorghum cultivars revealed dramatic differences in NLR repertoire between anthracnose-resistant (BTx623) and susceptible (GJH1) varieties, with 302 and 239 NLR genes respectively [32]. While collinear NLRs were highly conserved between cultivars, more than half of the non-collinear NLRs showed significant mutations or structural variations [32]. The resistant cultivar exhibited a higher number of highly expressed and induced NLR genes during pathogen infection, highlighting the functional consequences of NLR evolution [32].

Table 2: NLR Family Size Variation Across Plant Species

Species	Family	NLR Count	Genome Size	Notable Features	Citation
Capsicum annuum (pepper)	Solanaceae	288	~3.5 Gb	Tandem duplication-driven expansion	[11]
Asparagus officinalis (garden asparagus)	Asparagaceae	27	~1.3 Gb	Domesticated contraction from wild relatives	[4] [30]
Asparagus setaceus (wild relative)	Asparagaceae	63	~1.2 Gb	Expanded NLR repertoire	[4] [30]
Sorghum bicolor BTx623 (resistant)	Poaceae	302	~730 Mb	Expanded NLR clusters on chromosome 5	[32]
Sorghum bicolor GJH1 (susceptible)	Poaceae	239	~730 Mb	Contracted NLR repertoire	[32]
Triticum aestivum (wheat)	Poaceae	~2,000	~17 Gb	Extreme NLR expansion	[98]
Oropetium thomaeum	Poaceae	Several dozen	~245 Mb	Minimal NLR repertoire	[98]

Evolutionary Patterns in Plant Lineages

Synteny-informed analyses have uncovered fundamental patterns in NLR evolution across the plant kingdom:

The Oleaceae family exhibits contrasting evolutionary strategies between genera. Fraxinus (ash trees) demonstrates predominant gene conservation, with NLR genes retained from an ancient whole genome duplication event approximately 35 million years ago [24]. In contrast, Olea (olives) has undergone extensive gene expansion driven by recent duplications and birth of novel NLR families [24]. All Oleaceae species showed enhanced pseudogenization of TIR-NLRs and expansion in CCG10-NLRs, suggesting lineage-specific evolutionary trajectories [24].

The Asparagus genus reveals the impact of domestication on NLR repertoires, with garden asparagus (A. officinalis) containing only 27 NLRs compared to 63 and 47 in its wild relatives (A. setaceus and A. kiusianus, respectively) [4] [30]. Orthologous gene analysis identified 16 conserved NLR pairs between A. setaceus and A. officinalis, representing NLRs preserved during domestication [4] [30]. Notably, most preserved NLRs in cultivated asparagus showed unchanged or downregulated expression after fungal challenge, suggesting compromised immune function as a potential trade-off for desirable agronomic traits [4] [30].

Figure 2: Evolutionary Paths of NLR Repertoires

Successful synteny and orthology analysis of NLR genes requires specialized computational tools and curated genomic resources. The following table summarizes key reagents and their applications in NLR research:

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Resources for NLR Synteny Analysis

Resource Category	Specific Tools/Databases	Function/Application	Key Features
Genome Databases	Phytozome, NCBI Genome, Plaza	Source of annotated genomes	Curated plant genomes with structural annotations
NLR Identification	NLRtracker, NLGenomeSweeper, HMMER	Genome-wide NLR mining	NB-ARC domain (PF00931) detection	[24] [97]
Domain Analysis	InterProScan, NCBI CDD, Pfam	Domain architecture classification	Identifies TIR, CC, RPW8, LRR domains	[11] [4]
Synteny Analysis	MCScanX, JCVI, DAGChainer	Collinearity detection	Identifies conserved genomic blocks	[11] [30]
Orthology Analysis	OrthoFinder, InParanoid, OrthoMCL	Orthogroup inference	Distinguishes orthologs from paralogs	[4] [84]
Visualization	TBtools, Circos, Dual Synteny Plotter	Data visualization	Publication-ready synteny maps	[11] [30]
Expression Validation	RNA-seq datasets, qPCR primers	Expression analysis	Validates NLR induction during infection	[11] [32]

Experimental Protocols: Methodological Standards for NLR Comparative Genomics

Genome-Wide NLR Identification and Annotation

The foundational step in NLR comparative genomics involves comprehensive identification and annotation of NLR genes across target genomes. Standard protocols begin with HMMER searches using the NB-ARC domain (PF00931) as query with an E-value cutoff of 1 × 10⁻⁵, followed by BLASTp analyses against reference NLR proteins from model species like Arabidopsis thaliana with stringent E-value cutoffs of 1e-10 [11] [4]. Candidate sequences are subsequently validated through domain architecture analysis using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search to confirm the presence of complete NB-ARC domains (cd00204) and classify N-terminal domains (TIR, CC, RPW8) [11] [4]. This dual-approach strategy ensures both sensitivity and specificity in NLR identification.

For specialized NLR annotation, tools like NLRtracker and NLGenomeSweeper offer optimized pipelines. NLRtracker provides high-throughput capability for analyzing multiple genomes, as demonstrated in the Oleaceae family study encompassing 30 genomes [24]. NLGenomeSweeper focuses on complete functional genes by identifying full NB-ARC domains, providing annotations with emphasis on putatively functional NLRs rather than fragments [97].

Synteny Analysis and Orthology Inference

The core analytical workflow for NLR synteny and orthology analysis involves sequential application of specialized tools. For synteny detection, MCScanX implemented in TBtools represents the current standard, identifying collinear blocks through genome-wide alignment [11] [30]. Parameters typically define collinearity using a minimum of 5-10 gene pairs with maximum gene gaps of 25-50 genes between anchors. For microsynteny analysis, finer-scale examination focuses on immediate genomic neighborhoods (typically 5-15 genes flanking NLRs) to detect conserved gene order beyond sequence similarity [98].

For orthology inference, OrthoFinder has emerged as the tool of choice, using a graph-based algorithm to cluster NLRs into orthogroups based on sequence similarity normalized by gene length and phylogenetic distance [4] [84]. The algorithm constructs orthogroups by building sequence similarity graphs with Diamond BLAST searches, followed by MCL clustering [4]. OrthoFinder additionally infers rooted gene trees for each orthogroup, providing phylogenetic context for duplication and loss events.

Functional Validation and Expression Correlations

While computational predictions provide evolutionary insights, functional validation remains crucial for establishing biological significance. RNA-seq analysis of pathogen-infected versus control tissues identifies NLR genes with significant expression changes during immune responses [11] [32]. Standard differential expression analysis using DESeq2 with thresholds of |log₂ Fold Change| ≥ 1 and FDR < 0.05 identifies responsive NLRs [11]. Co-expression network analysis further predicts functional relationships, as demonstrated in pepper where protein-protein interaction networks identified Caz01g22900 and Caz09g03820 as potential hubs [11].

For functional characterization, virus-induced gene silencing (VIGS) provides an efficient approach for transient validation, as demonstrated in cotton where silencing of GaNBS (OG2) confirmed its role in virus resistance [84]. Additionally, high-throughput transformation platforms enable large-scale functional screening, exemplified by the wheat transgenic array of 995 NLRs from diverse grasses that identified 31 new resistance genes (19 against stem rust, 12 against leaf rust) [9].

Synteny and orthology analyses have transformed our understanding of NLR gene evolution, revealing both conserved architectural principles and lineage-specific adaptations in plant immune systems. These approaches have demonstrated that NLR genes evolve through diverse strategies—from the conservative retention of ancient duplicates in Fraxinus to the explosive expansion of novel genes in Olea and the dramatic contraction during domestication in asparagus [4] [24]. The emerging paradigm recognizes that NLR evolution is not merely a story of gene birth and death, but rather a complex interplay of duplication, functional diversification, and selective retention shaped by both pathogen pressure and domest history.

Future directions in NLR synteny analysis will likely incorporate pan-genomic approaches to capture intra-species variation in NLR repertoires, moving beyond single reference genomes to understand the full spectrum of NLR diversity within species [32]. Integration of machine learning methods with synteny information holds promise for predicting NLR function from evolutionary patterns, potentially accelerating the identification of new resistance genes for crop improvement. As genomic resources continue to expand across the plant kingdom, synteny and orthology analyses will remain essential tools for deciphering the complex evolutionary history of plant immune systems and harnessing this knowledge for sustainable agriculture.

Phylogenetic reconstruction serves as a fundamental methodology in evolutionary biology, enabling researchers to decipher historical relationships among genes, genomes, and species. Within plant genomics, this approach has proven particularly valuable for understanding the evolution of complex gene families, notably the nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs) that constitute crucial components of the plant immune system [37]. NLR genes represent one of the largest and most variable gene families in plants, characterized by rapid evolution and diversification driven by continuous arms races with pathogens [53]. The dynamic evolutionary patterns of NLR genes—including expansions, contractions, and functional diversification—create complex phylogenetic relationships that require sophisticated analytical approaches to unravel.

The phylogenetic analysis of NLR genes not only reveals evolutionary histories but also facilitates the identification of conserved functional modules and lineage-specific adaptations. Recent studies have demonstrated that comparative genomic analyses of NLR genes across related species can identify evolutionary patterns associated with domestication and disease susceptibility [4]. As the volume of genomic data continues to grow, robust phylogenetic methodologies become increasingly essential for extracting meaningful biological insights from sequence information.

Theoretical Framework: NLR Gene Family Evolution

NLR Gene Structure and Classification

NLR genes encode intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and activate defense responses. These proteins typically contain three conserved domains: an N-terminal domain, a central nucleotide-binding site (NBS) domain, and a C-terminal leucine-rich repeat (LRR) region [4]. Based on their N-terminal domains, NLRs are classified into distinct subfamilies: CNLs (containing coiled-coil domains), TNLs (with Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domains), and RNLs (featuring RPW8 domains) [4] [7]. While CNLs and TNLs primarily function as pathogen detectors, RNLs typically act as "helper" NLRs involved in downstream signaling [7].

The genomic organization of NLR genes exhibits distinctive characteristics that influence their evolutionary dynamics. NLR genes frequently display chromosomal clustering patterns and are often located in regions with higher recombination frequencies, such as subtelomeric regions [37]. This organizational structure promotes the generation of diversity through mechanisms like unequal crossing over and gene conversion, enabling plants to rapidly adapt to evolving pathogen populations.

Evolutionary Dynamics of NLR Genes

NLR gene families exhibit remarkable variation across plant species, reflecting diverse evolutionary paths shaped by ecological pressures and life history traits. Comparative genomic analyses have revealed that NLR gene content can vary dramatically—from several dozen in some species to over two thousand in bread wheat [37]. This variation does not necessarily correlate with genome size but rather with factors such as life history strategy, pathogen exposure, and ploidy level [37].

Several distinct evolutionary patterns have been observed in different plant lineages:

• Contraction patterns, where NLR gene families become smaller through evolutionary time
• Expansion and contraction cycles, involving initial diversification followed by selective pruning
• Consistent expansion, with continuous addition of NLR genes
• Lineage-specific innovations, including the emergence of novel NLR architectural types

Table 1: Evolutionary Patterns of NLR Genes in Different Plant Families

Plant Family	Evolutionary Pattern	Representative Species	NLR Count
Apiaceae	Contraction or expansion/contraction	Angelica sinensis, Coriandrum sativum	95-183 [7]
Asparagus	Contraction during domestication	Asparagus officinalis (cultivated)	27 [4]
Asparagus	Conservation in wild relatives	Asparagus setaceus (wild)	63 [4]
Brassicaceae	Expansion and contraction	Arabidopsis thaliana	~200 [37]
Poaceae	Convergent contraction	Oropetium thomaeum	Several dozen [4]

Methodological Framework for Phylogenetic Reconstruction

Workflow for Phylogenetic Analysis of NLR Genes

The following diagram illustrates the comprehensive workflow for phylogenetic reconstruction of NLR gene families, integrating genomic identification, evolutionary analysis, and functional validation:

Experimental Protocols for NLR Gene Phylogenetics

Genome-Wide Identification of NLR Genes

Principle: Comprehensive identification of NLR genes requires complementary approaches to detect the conserved NB-ARC domain (Pfam: PF00931) while accommodating sequence divergence.

Procedure:

• HMM Search: Perform Hidden Markov Model searches using the NB-ARC domain profile against all protein sequences in the target genome [4] [7].
  • Use HMMER software with E-value cutoff ≤ 10⁻⁴ [7]
  • Command: hmmsearch --cpu 4 --domtblout output.domtblout NB-ARC.hmm proteome.fasta

• BLASTp Analysis: Conduct local BLASTp searches using reference NLR protein sequences from related species [4].

  • Apply stringent E-value cutoff of 1e-10 [4]
  • Use reference sequences from model organisms (e.g., Arabidopsis thaliana, Oryza sativa)

• Domain Validation: Verify candidate sequences through domain architecture analysis using InterProScan and NCBI's Batch CD-Search [4].

  • Retain sequences containing NB-ARC domain with E-value ≤ 1e-5
  • Classify based on complete domain architecture using Pfam and PRGdb 4.0 databases

• Subfamily Classification: Categorize validated NLR genes into CNL, TNL, and RNL subfamilies based on N-terminal domains.

Multiple Sequence Alignment and Phylogenetic Reconstruction

Principle: Accurate alignment of conserved domains and phylogenetic tree construction using maximum likelihood methods.

Procedure:

• Domain Extraction: Extract amino acid sequences of NBS domains from all identified NLR genes [7].

• Multiple Sequence Alignment: Perform alignment using Clustal Omega or ClustalW with default parameters [4] [7].

  • Remove sequences that are too short or poorly aligned
  • Manually adjust alignments using MEGA X [7]

• Phylogenetic Tree Construction: Build trees using maximum likelihood method implemented in MEGA or IQ-TREE [4] [7].

  • Select best-fit substitution model using ModelFinder [7]
  • Perform branch support analysis with 1000 bootstrap replicates [4]
  • Use JTT matrix-based model for protein sequences [4]

• Tree Visualization and Annotation: Visualize trees using ggtree in R or iTOL [99].

  • Implement various layouts (rectangular, circular, fan) for different visualization needs
  • Annotate with domain architectures, expression data, and genomic contexts

Evolutionary Analysis of NLR Genes

Principle: Identify evolutionary patterns including gene family expansion/contraction, selection pressures, and orthologous relationships.

Procedure:

• Orthologous Group Analysis: Identify conserved NLR gene pairs between species using OrthoFinder v2.2.7 [4].
  • Cluster orthologous genes by sequence similarity
  • Identify lineage-specific gains and losses

• Gene Cluster Analysis: Identify genomic clusters of NLR genes using sliding-window approaches [7].

  • Consider genes separated by ≤ 250 kb as clustered [7]
  • Determine relative orientations (head-to-head, head-to-tail, tail-to-tail)

• Selection Pressure Analysis: Test for positive selection using codon-based models such as PAML.

  • Compare rates of non-synonymous (dN) and synonymous (dS) substitutions
  • Focus on solvent-exposed residues in LRR domains [37]

Case Study: Phylogenetic Analysis of NLR Genes in Asparagus Species

Application of Phylogenetic Reconstruction in NLR Gene Evolution

A recent comparative analysis of NLR genes in garden asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) and its wild relatives (A. setaceus and A. kiusianus) provides an exemplary case of phylogenetic reconstruction applied to understanding NLR gene evolution [4]. This study employed the methodological framework outlined above to investigate how domestication has impacted the NLR gene repertoire and its functional consequences for disease resistance.

The researchers identified a marked contraction of NLR genes during domestication, with wild species containing 63 (A. setaceus) and 47 (A. kiusianus) NLR genes compared to only 27 in cultivated garden asparagus [4]. Phylogenetic analysis categorized these NLRs into three distinct subfamilies and identified 16 conserved NLR gene pairs between wild and cultivated species, representing NLR genes preserved during domestication [4].

Table 2: NLR Gene Distribution in Asparagus Species

Species	Status	NLR Count	Genome Source	Assembly Quality
A. setaceus	Wild relative	63	Dryad Digital Repository	Published assembly [4]
A. kiusianus	Wild relative	47	Plant GARDEN	DRA012987 [4]
A. officinalis	Domesticated	27	Unpublished data	BUSCO completeness: 97.5% [4]

Functional validation through pathogen inoculation assays revealed distinct phenotypic responses: cultivated asparagus was susceptible to Phomopsis asparagi infection, while wild A. setaceus remained asymptomatic [4]. Notably, most preserved NLR genes in the cultivated species showed unchanged or downregulated expression following fungal challenge, suggesting functional impairment of disease resistance mechanisms during domestication [4].

This case study demonstrates how phylogenetic reconstruction, combined with comparative genomics and functional validation, can reveal the evolutionary forces shaping NLR gene families and their consequences for plant immunity.

Technical Implementation and Visualization

Phylogenetic Tree Visualization Approaches

Effective visualization of phylogenetic trees is essential for interpreting complex evolutionary relationships. Several specialized tools and packages have been developed for this purpose:

ggtree in R: The ggtree package extends ggplot2 to support tree objects and implements geometric layers for tree visualization [99]. Key features include:

• Support for multiple layouts (rectangular, roundrect, slanted, elliptical, circular, fan)
• Annotation capabilities with colored branches, highlighted clades, and associated data
• Compatibility with various tree objects (phylo, phylo4, phyloseq)

Basic ggtree commands:

Other Visualization Tools:

• iTOL: Interactive tree of life for annotation and customization [99]
• FigTree: User-friendly desktop application for tree viewing
• TreeDyn: Dynamic tool for tree annotation and visualization [99]

Table 3: Essential Research Reagents and Computational Tools for NLR Phylogenetics

Category	Item/Resource	Specification/Function	Application Context
Bioinformatics Tools	HMMER	Hidden Markov Model search with E-value ≤ 10⁻⁴ [7]	NLR gene identification via NB-ARC domain
	OrthoFinder v2.2.7	Clusters orthologous genes by sequence similarity [4]	Identification of conserved NLR pairs across species
	MEME Suite	Predicts conserved motifs with parameters set to 10 motifs [4]	Analysis of NBS domain architecture and motifs
	TBtools v2.136	Integrative toolkit for biological data analysis [4]	Chromosomal distribution mapping and visualization
Databases	Pfam Database	Domain classification and annotation [4]	NLR subfamily classification based on domain architecture
	PlantCARE	Identifies cis-acting regulatory elements [4]	Promoter analysis of NLR genes
	PRGdb 4.0	Plant Resistance Gene database [4]	Reference database for NLR gene classification
Laboratory Reagents	Phomopsis asparagi	Fungal pathogen for inoculation assays [4]	Functional validation of NLR-mediated resistance
	RNA extraction kits	Isolation of high-quality RNA from plant tissues	Expression analysis of NLR genes post-infection

Phylogenetic reconstruction provides an powerful framework for unraveling the complex evolutionary relationships within NLR gene families. Through the integration of comparative genomics, phylogenetic analysis, and functional validation, researchers can decipher the evolutionary forces that have shaped plant immune systems. The case study in asparagus species demonstrates how these approaches can reveal the impact of domestication on NLR gene repertoire and function, with direct implications for disease resistance breeding.

As genomic data continue to accumulate, phylogenetic methodologies will play an increasingly critical role in extracting biological insights from sequence information. The continued development of visualization tools and analytical methods will further enhance our ability to interpret complex evolutionary patterns and apply this knowledge to crop improvement strategies.

Promoter cis-regulatory elements (CREs) are short, non-coding DNA sequences that serve as binding sites for transcription factors and other regulatory proteins, enabling precise spatiotemporal control of gene expression [100]. In plant immunity, these elements play a crucial role in orchestrating defense responses by regulating the expression of nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors (NLRs), which are key intracellular immune receptors that recognize pathogen effectors and initiate effector-triggered immunity [37] [34]. The evolution of NLR genes is tightly interconnected with the regulatory mechanisms controlling their expression, as improper regulation can lead to autoimmunity or retarded plant growth, while maintaining prompt response to biotic stresses [37].

Understanding the relationship between promoter cis-elements and defense responses requires integrated approaches combining bioinformatics, comparative genomics, and experimental validation. This technical guide provides comprehensive methodologies for analyzing promoter cis-elements and linking them to NLR-mediated defense mechanisms in plants, with emphasis on practical implementation for researchers in plant pathology, genomics, and molecular biology.

Fundamental Concepts and Terminology

Core Definitions

• Cis-regulatory elements: Genomic sequences in promoter regions that transcription factors bind to regulate gene expression; typically 5-25 bp in length [101] [100]
• NLR genes: Nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat receptors encoding intracellular immune receptors with three conserved domains (N-terminal, NB-ARC, LRR) [4] [37]
• Promoter region: Typically ~1000-2500 bp upstream of the transcription start site, containing multiple cis-elements that help plants react to environmental changes [101]

Classification of Plant NLRs

Based on N-terminal domains, NLRs are classified into three major subfamilies [4] [30]:

• CNLs: Containing coiled-coil domains
• TNLs: With Toll/interleukin-1 receptor domains
• RNLs: Featuring RPW8 domains

Bioinformatics Approaches for Cis-Element Identification

Table 1: Key Bioinformatics Databases for Cis-Element Analysis

Database	URL	Primary Function	Key Features
PlantCARE	http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/	cis-element prediction in plant promoters	Comprehensive collection of plant cis-acting elements
PLACE	https://www.dna.affrc.go.jp/PLACE/	cis-regulatory element analysis	Database of motif sequences with experimental evidence
PlantTFDB	https://planttfdb.gao-lab.org/	Transcription factor database	Central hub for TFs and regulatory interactions
JASPAR	https://jaspar.elixir.no/	TF binding profiles	Curated, non-redundant set of profiles with experimental evidence

Standard Workflow for Promoter Analysis

The fundamental workflow for promoter cis-element analysis involves sequence retrieval, in silico prediction, and functional annotation [101] [4] [30]:

• Sequence Retrieval: Extract 1000-2500 bp upstream of the translation start site from genomic databases
• Element Prediction: Submit sequences to PlantCARE and/or PLACE databases
• Functional Annotation: Categorize identified elements based on known regulatory functions
• Comparative Analysis: Examine element distribution across related promoters
• Network Integration: Link cis-elements to co-expression networks and regulatory modules

Advanced Bioinformatics Methods

For comprehensive analyses, machine learning approaches like Microarray-Associated Motif Analyzer (MAMA) can identify novel cis-elements. One study successfully identified 560 CRE candidates using MAMA and achieved approximately 83% accuracy in explaining expression patterns using the Boruta-XGBoost model with both novel MAMA CREs and known PLACE CREs [100].

Experimental Methodologies for Validation

Chromatin Immunoprecipitation (ChIP) Protocols

Chromatin immunoprecipitation followed by high-throughput sequencing (ChIP-seq) enables genome-wide mapping of transcription factor binding sites and histone modifications [102]. For plant tissues with high starch content (e.g., mature Nicotiana benthamiana leaves), optimized protocols include:

Key modifications for starchy plant tissues [102]:

• Enhanced crosslinking: 1% formaldehyde for 10 minutes under vacuum infiltration
• Improved nuclei isolation: Nuclei extraction buffer with 0.5M mannitol, 10mM PIPES-KOH, 10mM MgClâ‚‚, 2% PVP40
• Starch removal: Differential centrifugation to separate starch from nuclei
• Chromatin shearing: Optimized sonication conditions for plant chromatin

Critical considerations:

• Tissue harvesting at beginning of photoperiod for consistency
• Immediate processing or flash-freezing in liquid nitrogen
• Antibody validation for plant-specific epitopes
• Include biological replicates and controls (input DNA, no antibody)

Expression Analysis Under Defense Conditions

Table 2: Key Methodological Components for Expression Analysis

Component	Specification	Application in Defense Studies
Plant Materials	Wild-type and mutant lines; pathogen-challenged vs. control	Comparative analysis of defense gene regulation
Growth Conditions	Controlled environment chambers with specific light/dark cycles	Standardized induction of defense responses
Pathogen Inoculation	Specific pathogens (e.g., Phomopsis asparagi for asparagus)	Defense response elicitation
RNA Isolation	RNeasy Plant Mini Kit or equivalent with DNase treatment	High-quality RNA for expression studies
cDNA Synthesis	Reverse transcription with oligo(dT) and/or random primers	Template for qPCR analysis
qPCR Primers	Designed using Primer-Blast, amplicons <200 bp	Specific detection of target transcripts
Reference Genes	GAPDH, Actin, EF1α	Normalization of expression data

Standard RT-qPCR protocol for defense gene expression [101]:

• Total RNA isolation using commercial kits (e.g., RNeasy Plant Mini Kit)
• First-strand cDNA synthesis with reverse transcription kit (e.g., QuantiNova)
• Real-time PCR with SYBR Green chemistry
• Three biological replicates with three technical replicates each
• Data analysis using 2−ΔΔCT method with reference gene normalization

Loss-of-Function Studies

Generation and analysis of knockout mutants (e.g., T-DNA insertion lines) provides functional validation of cis-element roles [101]:

• Mutant confirmation by PCR with gene-specific and insertion-specific primers
• Phenotypic assessment under control and stress conditions
• Biochemical assays to measure defense-related metabolites
• Complementation tests to confirm genotype-phenotype relationships

Case Studies in NLR Gene Regulation

Cis-Element Analysis in Arabidopsis VPE Genes

Promoter analysis of Arabidopsis vacuolar processing enzyme (VPE) genes revealed repetitive drought-related cis-elements in αVPE, including ABRE, MBS, MYC, and MYB motifs [101]. This bioinformatics prediction was validated through:

• Co-expression network analysis showing interaction with drought-regulation genes
• Expression profiling showing 2.7-fold upregulation under drought treatment
• Loss-of-function studies with αvpe mutants showing 22% higher water retention
• Biochemical assays revealing altered proline, sucrose, and photosynthetic pigment content

NLR Promoter Analysis in Asparagus Species

Comparative genomic analysis of NLR genes across Asparagus species (A. officinalis, A. kiusianus, A. setaceus) demonstrated [4] [30]:

• Promoters contain numerous cis-elements responsive to defense signals and phytohormones
• Domesticated A. officinalis shows marked NLR gene contraction (27 NLRs) compared to wild relatives (63 in A. setaceus, 47 in A. kiusianus)
• Only 16 conserved NLR gene pairs between A. setaceus and A. officinalis
• Most preserved NLR genes in A. officinalis showed unchanged or downregulated expression after fungal challenge
• Artificial selection during domestication potentially favored yield over defense capacity

Iron Excess Response in Rice

Comprehensive analysis of iron excess-responsive promoters in rice identified novel cis-elements through [100]:

• Network analysis categorizing genes into four expression clusters (Fe storage, chelator, uptake, WRKY co-expression types)
• Machine learning approach (MAMA) identifying 560 CRE candidates
• Discovery of novel cis-elements: GCWGCWGC, CGACACGC, and Myb binding-like motifs
• Integration of known elements (DCEp2, IDEF1, WRKY, Myb, AP2/ERF binding sites)
• Construction of molecular models for promoter structures regulating Fe excess response

The Scientist's Toolkit: Essential Research Reagents

Table 3: Key Research Reagents for Promoter Cis-Element Analysis

Reagent/Resource	Function	Example Products/Specifications
PlantCARE Database	cis-element prediction	Online tool for plant promoter analysis
PLACE Database	Regulatory motif identification	Database with experimental evidence
ChIP-Validated Antibodies	Histone modification detection	H3K4me3 (active mark), H3K9me2 (repressive mark)
Nuclei Isolation Buffer	Chromatin preparation	0.5M Mannitol, 10mM PIPES-KOH, 10mM MgClâ‚‚, 2% PVP40
Crosslinking Reagent	Protein-DNA fixation	1% Formaldehyde for ChIP experiments
RNA Isolation Kit	Total RNA extraction	RNeasy Plant Mini Kit (Qiagen) with DNase treatment
Reverse Transcription Kit	cDNA synthesis	QuantiNova Reverse Transcription Kit
SYBR Green Master Mix	qPCR detection	QuantiNova SYBR Green PCR
Plant Growth Media	Controlled plant cultivation	Soil mixtures with slow-release fertilizer

Integration with NLR Gene Evolution

The evolution of NLR genes is intrinsically linked to their regulatory mechanisms. Several key aspects highlight this connection [37] [34]:

Co-evolution of cis-regulatory elements and NLR diversity: As NLR genes evolve through duplication, recombination, and diversifying selection, their promoter regions must similarly evolve to maintain appropriate regulation while avoiding autoimmunity.

Epigenetic regulation of NLR expression: Histone modifications such as H3K4me3 (associated with active promoters) and H3K9me2 (associated with gene silencing) play crucial roles in fine-tuning NLR expression patterns in response to pathogen challenges [102].

Domestication-associated regulatory changes: Comparative studies in asparagus show that artificial selection during domestication has led to contraction of NLR repertoires and altered expression patterns of retained NLR genes, potentially contributing to increased disease susceptibility in cultivated varieties [4] [30].

Promoter cis-element analysis provides crucial insights into the regulatory mechanisms controlling NLR gene expression and plant defense responses. The integration of bioinformatics predictions with experimental validations through ChIP-seq, expression analyses, and functional studies enables researchers to establish direct links between regulatory motifs and defense phenotypes.

Future directions in this field include:

• Single-cell resolution analyses of promoter activity in different cell types
• Integration of epigenomic data with cis-element mapping
• Development of machine learning models for predicting defense gene expression based on promoter features
• Application of genome editing technologies to modify cis-elements and study functional outcomes
• Comparative analyses across diverse plant species to identify conserved and specialized regulatory mechanisms

The continued advancement of promoter cis-element analysis will enhance our understanding of plant immunity and facilitate the development of crops with improved disease resistance through targeted manipulation of regulatory sequences.

The evolutionary trajectory of the Nucleotide-binding Leucine-rich Repeat (NLR) gene family represents a fundamental adaptive response in plants to rapidly evolving pathogens. These intracellular immune receptors function as specialized surveillance proteins that detect pathogen effector molecules and activate robust defense responses, culminating in Effector-Triggered Immunity (ETI) [1]. The NLR family exhibits extraordinary genetic innovation through tandem duplications, domain shuffling, and neofunctionalization, making it one of the most dynamic and rapidly evolving gene families in plant genomes [1]. Understanding this evolutionary context is crucial for designing effective large-scale phenotyping strategies that connect specific NLR variants to resistance outcomes in agricultural settings.

Large-scale phenotyping bridges the gap between genetic composition and observable resistance traits by systematically correlating the presence or expression of specific NLR genes with disease resistance performance under field conditions. This approach has significant implications for crop improvement, as evidenced by recent studies demonstrating that domestication has often led to NLR repertoire contraction, resulting in increased susceptibility in cultivated varieties compared to their wild relatives [4]. The complex architecture of NLR networks, where sensor and helper NLRs function in coordinated pairs or networks, further underscores the necessity of comprehensive phenotyping approaches that can decipher these functional relationships [1] [103].

Establishing the Correlation Framework: Principles and Biological Basis

Theoretical Foundation for NLR-Resistance Correlation

The correlation between NLR presence and resistance phenotypes operates through well-established biological mechanisms rooted in the plant immune system. NLR proteins function as specific pathogen detectors that recognize direct or indirect interactions with pathogen effectors, leading to immune activation [1]. This recognition triggers a complex signaling cascade often accompanied by a hypersensitive response (HR), which restricts pathogen spread through localized programmed cell death [1] [12]. The gene-for-gene hypothesis, first proposed by Harold Flor, provides the historical foundation for these specific interactions, where plant NLR proteins recognize corresponding pathogen avirulence (Avr) effectors [1].

Recent research has revealed that functional NLRs frequently exhibit high constitutive expression even in uninfected plants, challenging previous assumptions about their transcriptional repression [50] [9]. This expression signature provides a valuable predictive marker for identifying functional resistance genes. For instance, known functional NLRs in Arabidopsis, barley, and tomato are enriched among the most highly expressed NLR transcripts in their respective species [50] [9]. This relationship between expression and function forms a critical basis for correlative studies, as NLRs must reach expression thresholds to activate effective immune responses [12].

NLR Architecture and Functional Specialization

NLR proteins exhibit a conserved tripartite domain architecture that informs their function in immune signaling:

• N-terminal domain: Typically a coiled-coil (CC), Toll/interleukin-1 receptor (TIR), or RPW8 domain that mediates downstream signaling [1]
• Central NB-ARC domain: Functions as a molecular switch regulated by nucleotide exchange (ADP/ATP) [1] [12]
• C-terminal LRR domain: Involved in effector recognition and autoinhibition, exhibiting high sequence diversity due to pathogen-driven selection [1]

Table 1: Major NLR Classes and Their Characteristics

NLR Class	N-terminal Domain	Signaling Mechanism	Phylogenetic Distribution
CNL	Coiled-coil (CC)	Often activates calcium influx channels	All angiosperms
TNL	Toll/Interleukin-1 receptor (TIR)	NADase activity producing signaling molecules	Eudicots, some monocots
RNL	RPW8	Helper NLR for signal amplification	All angiosperms
CCG10	G10-type CC	Unknown signaling pathway	Limited lineages

The functional specialization of NLRs extends beyond singleton receptors to include paired NLR systems and complex immune networks. In these configurations, sensor NLRs specialize in pathogen recognition while helper NLRs amplify defense signals [1]. For example, the recently cloned Pm68 locus in wheat comprises two NLR genes (Pm68-1 and Pm68-2) that function together to confer resistance to powdery mildew, with neither gene providing complete resistance alone [103]. This modular organization increases the evolutionary flexibility of the plant immune system but complicates genotype-phenotype correlations.

Methodologies for Field-Based NLR Phenotyping

Experimental Design and Field Setup

Effective correlation of NLR presence with resistance phenotypes requires strategic experimental design that accounts for both genetic and environmental variables. Randomized complete block designs with multiple replicates are essential to manage field heterogeneity, while spatial adjustments can account for soil variation and microclimate effects [104]. The inclusion of universal susceptible controls at regular intervals throughout the field layout provides a baseline for disease pressure assessment.

Temporal phenotyping across multiple growing seasons and geographical locations is crucial for distinguishing stable resistance from environment-dependent effects. For instance, in the identification of the Rps11 gene in soybean, researchers evaluated resistance across multiple locations and against numerous Phytophthora sojae isolates to confirm broad-spectrum resistance [104]. This comprehensive approach established that Rps11 alone was responsible for resistance to 80% of field isolates collected across Indiana [104].

Table 2: Essential Field Trial Design Elements for NLR Phenotyping

Design Element	Specification	Rationale
Replication	3-6 complete blocks	Minimize environmental variance
Plot Size	Species-dependent, typically 1-5m²	Balance statistical power with practical constraints
Control Genotypes	Susceptible and resistant checks	Standardize disease assessments
Assessment Timing	Critical growth stages aligned with disease cycles	Capture complete resistance profile
Inoculation Method	Natural infection supplemented with artificial inoculation	Ensure uniform disease pressure

Disease Assessment and Phenotyping Protocols

Standardized disease assessment protocols are fundamental for generating reproducible correlation data. The infection type (IT) scale (0-4) provides a quantitative measure of resistance, where IT 0 indicates complete immunity and IT 4 indicates high susceptibility [103]. For the Pm68 locus in wheat, researchers classified resistant genotypes by hypersensitive reactions (IT 0) while susceptible lines showed IT 4 [103]. Complementary disease severity scales (0-100%) quantify the extent of tissue affected, providing additional dimensions for correlation analyses.

Advanced phenotyping technologies offer high-throughput alternatives to visual assessments. Hyperspectral imaging can detect subtle physiological changes preceding symptom development, while thermography identifies temperature changes associated with stomatal closure during immune responses. These automated platforms increase phenotyping precision and throughput, enabling characterization of large germplasm collections necessary for robust NLR-resistance correlations.

Molecular Profiling Techniques for NLR Characterization

NLR Gene Identification and Annotation

Comprehensive NLR identification begins with genome-wide annotation using a combination of homology-based and domain-based approaches. The HMMER algorithm with the NB-ARC domain (PF00931) profile serves as a standard tool, complemented by BLASTp searches against reference NLR databases [11] [4]. For complex polyploid genomes, specialized pipelines like DaapNLRSeek have been developed to improve annotation accuracy by leveraging diploid progenitor information [47].

Sequencing technological advances have dramatically enhanced NLR characterization. Long-read sequencing platforms (PacBio, Oxford Nanopore) resolve complex NLR clusters that are often misassembled in short-read assemblies [104] [103]. In soybean, the complete assembly of the Rps11 region required a combination of PacBio sequencing, Bionano optical mapping, and 10× Genomics linked reads to resolve its 27.7-kb structure [104]. Similarly, the cloning of Pm68 from wheat utilized PacBio circular consensus sequencing to generate a high-quality assembly of the resistance locus [103].

Expression Profiling and Transcriptional Analysis

Expression analysis provides critical functional insights beyond mere NLR presence. RNA-seq of infected and uninfected tissues identifies NLRs with pathogen-responsive expression patterns [11] [12]. For example, in pepper, transcriptome profiling during Phytophthora capsici infection identified 44 differentially expressed NLR genes, with 82.6% of NLR promoters containing binding sites for salicylic acid and/or jasmonic acid signaling [11].

The importance of expression validation is exemplified by the Rps11 gene in soybean, where expression analysis proved decisive in identifying the causal gene among several candidates in a fine-mapped interval [104]. Among four NLR genes in the target region, only R6 was expressed in both inoculated and uninoculated stems, with pathogen-responsive induction providing additional evidence for its role in immunity [104].

Reverse transcription quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR) offers targeted validation of NLR expression with high sensitivity and temporal resolution. This approach confirmed the functional importance of the pepper NLR gene Caz01g22900, which was identified as a hub in protein-protein interaction networks following P. capsici infection [11].

Data Integration and Analytical Approaches

Statistical Methods for Genotype-Phenotype Correlation

Establishing robust correlations between NLR variants and resistance phenotypes requires appropriate statistical frameworks. Association mapping approaches identify significant marker-trait associations by leveraging historical recombination in diverse panels. For the Pm68 locus in wheat, association analysis across 120 durum wheat accessions confirmed that Xdw08.9 was the only marker perfectly correlated with resistance [103].

Interval mapping in biparental populations provides complementary power for detecting NLR effects, particularly for rare alleles. The initial mapping of Rps11 used 209 F₂:₃ families to localize the resistance to a 348-kb region [104], while fine-mapping of Pm68 utilized 1,382 F₂ individuals to define a 0.21-cM target interval [103].

Modern machine learning approaches offer powerful alternatives for modeling complex NLR-resistance relationships. Random forest algorithms can handle epistatic interactions between multiple NLR genes, while regularized regression methods identify the most predictive variants among correlated NLR polymorphisms. These approaches are particularly valuable for modeling the coordinated action of NLR networks, where multiple sensors and helpers function together to confer resistance.

Evolutionary Genomics and Comparative Analysis

Evolutionary analyses provide critical context for interpreting NLR-resistance correlations by identifying patterns of selection and diversification. Comparative genomics across wild and cultivated relatives reveals how domestication has shaped NLR repertoires. In asparagus, a dramatic contraction of NLR genes occurred during domestication, with wild A. setaceus containing 63 NLRs compared to just 27 in cultivated A. officinalis [4]. This reduction correlated with increased susceptibility to Phomopsis asparagi in the domesticated species [4].

Orthology analysis identifies conserved NLR pairs maintained under selection, highlighting candidates with potentially essential immune functions. Between A. setaceus and A. officinalis, 16 orthologous NLR pairs were identified, representing the core NLR repertoire preserved despite overall contraction [4]. Expression analysis revealed that most preserved NLRs showed unchanged or downregulated expression after fungal challenge in susceptible A. officinalis, suggesting disrupted regulation contributes to susceptibility [4].

Table 3: Evolutionary Patterns in NLR Gene Families Across Plant Species

Species	NLR Count	Expansion Mechanism	Resistance Spectrum
Capsicum annuum (pepper)	288 canonical NLRs	Tandem duplication (18.4% of NLRs)	Specific to P. capsici strains
Asparagus officinalis	27 NLRs	Mainly contraction from wild relatives	Susceptible to P. asparagi
Asparagus setaceus (wild)	63 NLRs	Lineage-specific expansion	Resistant to P. asparagi
Triticum aestivum (wheat)	>1,000 NLRs	Tandem duplication and polyploidization	Broad-spectrum resistance
Glycine max (soybean) Rps11	12 NLRs in cluster	Unequal recombination	Broad-spectrum to P. sojae

Implementation and Research Applications

Case Studies of Successful NLR-Resistance Correlation

Several recent studies exemplify the successful correlation of NLR genes with resistance phenotypes using integrated approaches. In soybean, the Rps11 gene was correlated with broad-spectrum resistance to Phytophthora sojae through a combination of fine mapping, expression analysis, and functional validation [104]. The resistance spectrum was confirmed by evaluating F₂:₃ families against 14 P. sojae races, showing perfect genotype-phenotype correlation [104]. Rps11 represents an unusually large NLR (27.7 kb) with LRR expansion, which may contribute to its broad recognition capacity [104].

In wheat, the Pm68 locus was correlated with powdery mildew resistance through genetic fine-mapping and association analysis [103]. The resistance was shown to require two NLR genes (Pm68-1 and Pm68-2) functioning as a pair, demonstrating the importance of considering genetic interactions in correlation studies [103]. Transgenic assays confirmed that neither gene alone could confer resistance, while combined expression provided complete protection [103].

Translational Applications for Crop Improvement

The correlation between NLR presence and resistance phenotypes enables multiple strategies for crop improvement. Marker-assisted selection allows efficient introgression of validated NLR alleles into elite backgrounds. For Pm68, linked markers (Xdw08.9) enabled selection during backcrossing without the need for phenotypic screening [103]. Similarly, Rps11-linked markers facilitate selection for broad-spectrum Phytophthora resistance in soybean breeding programs [104].

NLR stacking combines multiple resistance genes to enhance durability and broaden resistance spectra. The identification of 31 new NLRs conferring resistance to wheat stem rust or leaf rust through large-scale screening demonstrates the potential of this approach [50] [9]. Transgenic arrays expressing 995 NLRs from diverse grasses identified 19 effective against stem rust and 12 against leaf rust, providing valuable resources for engineering durable resistance [50] [9].

Table 4: Key Research Reagents and Platforms for NLR Phenotyping

Reagent/Platform	Application	Technical Considerations
PacBio HiFi/ONT Ultra-long	NLR cluster assembly	Resolve complex genomic regions with high accuracy
DaapNLRSeek pipeline	NLR annotation in polyploids	Specialized for complex sugarcane genomes [47]
PlantCARE database	cis-element prediction in NLR promoters	Identifies defense-related regulatory motifs [11]
STRING database	Protein-protein interaction prediction	Models NLR immune networks [11]
OrthoFinder	Comparative NLR classification	Identifies orthologous NLR groups across species [4]
NLR-transgenic arrays	High-throughput function validation	Enabled testing of 995 NLRs in wheat [50]
RT-qPCR assays	Expression validation of candidate NLRs	Confirms pathogen-responsive expression patterns [11]

The correlation between NLR gene presence and resistance phenotypes represents a powerful approach for deciphering plant immune function and deploying resistance in crop improvement programs. Successful implementation requires integration of multiple methodologies—from field phenotyping and molecular characterization to statistical genetics and functional validation. The evolutionary dynamics of the NLR gene family, including rapid diversification, lineage-specific expansions and contractions, and functional specialization, underscore the importance of species-specific analyses while highlighting conserved principles that guide translational applications.

Emerging technologies in sequencing, gene editing, and high-throughput phenotyping are accelerating our capacity to establish robust NLR-resistance correlations across diverse crop species. The research framework outlined here provides a comprehensive roadmap for connecting NLR genetics to field performance, ultimately enabling the development of durably resistant cultivars through informed manipulation of the plant immune repertoire.

Conclusion

The study of NLR gene family evolution reveals a dynamic system shaped by an unending arms race with pathogens. Key takeaways include the central role of tandem duplication in rapid adaptation, the feasibility of cross-species NLR transfer, and the critical importance of expression-level optimization for functionality. The recent discovery that functional NLRs are often highly expressed overturns long-held assumptions and opens new avenues for prediction. Future directions should focus on engineering optimized NLR networks with minimal fitness costs, leveraging non-domesticated species as resistance reservoirs, and applying plant NLR evolutionary principles to inform understanding of mammalian immune receptor systems. This knowledge is pivotal for designing next-generation disease control strategies in both agriculture and, by analogy, in biomedical research concerning innate immunity and inflammatory diseases.

References

• 1. NLR receptors in plant immunity: making sense of the ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10561179/]
• 2. An angiosperm NLR Atlas reveals that NLR gene reduction ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674205221003142]
• 3. The large repertoire of conifer NLR resistance genes ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-47950-7]
• 4. Comparative analysis of the NLR gene family in ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1681919/full]
• 5. NLRscape: an atlas of plant NLR proteins - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9825502/]
• 6. Evolution of NLR Resistance Genes in Magnoliids [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.777157/full]
• 7. Comparative-genomic analysis reveals dynamic NLR gene ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10017999/]
• 8. Tracing the path from conservation to expansion ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11863892/]
• 9. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high- ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-025-02110-w]
• 10. Transcript‐level expression control of plant NLR genes - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6638128/]
• 11. Genome-Wide Identification and Functional Evolution of NLR ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12562843/]
• 12. The Ups and Downs of Plant NLR Expression During ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.921148/full]
• 13. The roles of segmental and tandem gene duplication in the ... [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2229-4-10]
• 14. Modelling segmental duplications in the human genome [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-021-07789-7]
• 15. Evolution of Gene Duplication in Plants - PMC - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4972278/]
• 16. The functional importance of telomere clustering [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2665780/]
• 17. Telomeres: an organized string linking plants and mammals [https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-024-00558-y]
• 18. Pangenomic context reveals the extent of intraspecific plant ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1931312825002835]
• 19. Genome-Wide Comparative Analyses Reveal the Dynamic ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2016.01205/full]
• 20. This is an uncorrected proof. - Research journals - PLOS [https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1013706]
• 21. Genome-Wide Comparative Analyses Reveal the Dynamic ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4978739/]
• 22. Genome-Wide Identification and Functional Evolution of ... [https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/47/10/867]
• 23. Two major duplication events shaped the transcription factor repertoires in Solanaceae species - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0304423823006520]
• 24. Tracing the path from conservation to expansion evolutionary insights into NLR genes in oleaceae | BMC Plant Biology | Full Text [https://bmcplantbiol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12870-025-06233-2]
• 25. Tracing the path from conservation to expansion evolutionary ... [https://doaj.org/article/5181db3778ec43acbbf5f185a91f14ee]
• 26. Comparative-genomic analysis reveals dynamic NLR gene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36936422/]
• 27. Backbone phylogeny and evolution of Apioideae (Apiaceae): New insights from phylogenomic analyses of plastome data - ScienceDirect [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1055790321001160]
• 28. Macroevolution of NLR genes in family Fabaceae provides ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2667064X23001215]
• 29. Comparative-genomic analysis reveals dynamic NLR gene ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/genetics/articles/10.3389/fgene.2023.1141194/full]
• 30. Comparative analysis of the NLR gene family in the genomes ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12507765/]
• 31. Divergent evolution of NLR genes in the genus Glycine [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11263291/]
• 32. Comparative genomic analysis reveals the difference of NLR ... [https://phytopatholres.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s42483-025-00318-4]
• 33. Plant NBS-LRR proteins in pathogen sensing and host defense [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1973153/]
• 34. Evolution and Conservation of Plant NLR Functions [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2013.00297/full]
• 35. Plant NBS-LRR proteins: adaptable guards - Genome Biology [https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/gb-2006-7-4-212]
• 36. Multilevel evolution shapes the function of NB-LRR ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2022.1007288/full]
• 37. Regulation and Evolution of NLR Genes - PubMed Central - NIH [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6032283/]
• 38. Stepwise artificial evolution of a plant disease resistance ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3876221/]
• 39. Resistify: A Novel NLR Classifier That Reveals Helitron ... - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11752215/]
• 40. Genomic organization, domain assortments, and nucleotide ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1011739]
• 41. BLAST: Basic Local Alignment Search Tool [https://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi]
• 42. BLAST: Compare & identify sequences - NCBI ... [https://guides.lib.berkeley.edu/ncbi/blast]
• 43. The HMMER software — HMMER web server 1.0 documentation [https://hmmer-web-docs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/algorithms.html]
• 44. HMMER [http://hmmer.org/]
• 45. NLRtracker is the most sensitive and accurate NLR extraction ... [https://figshare.com/articles/figure/NLRtracker_is_the_most_sensitive_and_accurate_NLR_extraction_tool_on_the_i_Arabidopsis_i_tomato_and_rice_RefSeq_genomes_/16839625]
• 46. slt666666/NLRtracker: NLR annotation tool [https://github.com/slt666666/NLRtracker]
• 47. DaapNLRSeek, prediction, and evolution of resistance ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004225011307]
• 48. In silico prediction method for plant Nucleotide-binding ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40304719/]
• 49. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high- ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40987916/]
• 50. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12537499/]
• 51. A reannotation–based pipeline for mining missing NLR ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2662173825002085]
• 52. Discovery of functional NLRs using expression level, high- ... [https://ueaeprints.uea.ac.uk/id/eprint/100979]
• 53. The expanding world of plant NLR pairs [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S136013852500305X]
• 54. NLRs in plant immunity: Structural insights and molecular ... [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772899425000096]
• 55. Molecular mechanisms that limit the costs of NLR‐mediated ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6638094/]
• 56. PlantNLRatlas: a comprehensive dataset of full- and partial ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1178069/full]
• 57. Reap the crop wild relatives for breeding future crops [https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167779921001979]
• 58. Novel germplasm of tepary and other Phaseolus bean wild ... [https://www.genresj.org/index.php/grj/article/view/genresj.LSBJ4572]
• 59. RefPlantNLR is a comprehensive collection of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8559963/]
• 60. Genome wide association study unveils the genetic basis ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12515232/]
• 61. Plant NLRs: The Whistleblowers of Plant Immunity - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7747998/]
• 62. Pyramiding resistance-conferring gene sequences in crops [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28755651/]
• 63. Gene pyramiding and its importance in modern plant ... [https://clinicsearchonline.org/article/gene-pyramiding-and-its-importance-in-modern-plant-breeding]
• 64. Gene Pyramiding for Achieving Enhanced Resistance to ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2020.591457/full]
• 65. Gene pyramiding an advanced approach for disease ... [https://innovationsagriculture.pensoft.net/article/125404/]
• 66. Gene Pyramiding Using Molecular Markers [https://plant-breeding-genomics.extension.org/gene-pyramiding-using-molecular-markers/]
• 67. Marker-Assisted Pyramiding of Blast-Resistance Genes in ... [https://www.mdpi.com/2223-7747/12/4/757]
• 68. Molecular marker assisted gene stacking for disease ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7178591/]
• 69. Plant NLR immunity activation and execution - PubMed Central [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10805603/]
• 70. Breaking plant family barriers: Sensor-helper NLR pairs ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/41243167/]
• 71. Concerted expansion and contraction of immune receptor ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-022-01260-5]
• 72. Regulation and Evolution of NLR Genes [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29867062/]
• 73. Oligomerization-mediated autoinhibition and cofactor ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07668-7]
• 74. Rewriting the code of plant immunity | Nature Biotechnology [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-025-02886-4]
• 75. Mechanisms to Mitigate the Trade-Off Between Growth and ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28320784/]
• 76. Editorial: Plant growth defense trade-offs [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2023.1327920/full]
• 77. A Practical Guide to Visualization and Statistical Analysis of ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2017.00623/full]
• 78. Quantitative Resistance to Plant Pathogens in Pyramiding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5664368/]
• 79. Epigenetic silencing in transgenic plants - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4564723/]
• 80. Spray-induced gene silencing for crop protection [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1527944/full]
• 81. Generating Transgenic Plants with Single-copy Insertions ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29658919/]
• 82. New Technique Silences Plant Genes to Boost Crop Yields [https://www.seedworld.com/europe/2025/08/18/new-technique-silences-plant-genes-to-boost-crop-yields/]
• 83. A new method allows genes in plants to be silenced ... [https://www.rna-seqblog.com/a-new-method-allows-genes-in-plants-to-be-silenced-to-improve-crop-yields/]
• 84. Comparative analysis, diversification, and functional ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62876-5]
• 85. Domestication Reduces Plant Immune Receptor Gene ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/40692513/]
• 86. Derevnina Group: Decoding Sensor-Helper NLR ... [https://www.plantsci.cam.ac.uk/derevnina-group-decoding-sensor-helper-nlr-communication-mechanisms]
• 87. A Species-Wide Inventory of NLR Genes and Alleles in Arabidopsis thaliana - PMC [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6709784/]
• 88. Plant NLR diversity: the known unknowns of pan-NLRomes [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8226294/]
• 89. Transcriptome analysis of resistant and susceptible ... [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39075348/]
• 90. Transcriptome dynamics associated with resistance and ... [https://bmcgenomics.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12864-018-5012-3]
• 91. Phenotypic and comparative transcriptomic analyses of ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12604420/]
• 92. Transcriptomics combined with physiological analysis ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2025.1604512/full]
• 93. Comparative RNA-seq analysis of resistant and ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45937-z]
• 94. Genome-wide functional analyses of plant coiled–coil NLR ... [https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.2005821]
• 95. Direct recognition of pathogen effectors by plant NLR immune ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9528080/]
• 96. In silico prediction method for plant Nucleotide‐binding ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12042882/]
• 97. Special Issue : NLR Gene Evolution in Plants [https://www.mdpi.com/journal/genes/special_issues/NLR_evol]
• 98. Deciphering Plant NLR Genomic Evolution: Synteny-Informed ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11789945/]
• 99. Chapter 4 Phylogenetic Tree Visualization [https://yulab-smu.top/treedata-book/chapter4.html]
• 100. Elucidation of Novel cis-Regulatory Elements and ... [https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/plant-science/articles/10.3389/fpls.2021.660303/full]
• 101. Promoter Cis-Element Analyses Reveal the Function ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10045073/]
• 102. An optimised chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) method ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7723940/]
• 103. An NLR pair in the Pm68 locus confers powdery mildew ... [https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12514284/]
• 104. A giant NLR gene confers broad-spectrum resistance to ... [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-26554-8]