4.7 Article

Genotype-specific suppression of multiple defense pathways in apple root during infection by Pythium ultimum

期刊

HORTICULTURE RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

NANJING AGRICULTURAL UNIV
DOI: 10.1038/s41438-018-0087-1

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA ARS base fund
  2. Washington Tree Fruit Research Commission

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The genotype-specific defense activation in the roots of perennial tree crops to soilborne necrotrophic pathogens remains largely unknown. A recent phenotyping study indicated that the apple rootstock genotypes B.9 and G.935 have contrasting resistance responses to infection by Pythium ultimum. In the current study, a comparative transcriptome analysis by Illumina Solexa HiSeq 3000 platform was carried out to identify the global transcriptional regulation networks between the susceptible B.9 and the resistant G.935 to P. ultimum infection. Thirty-six libraries were sequenced to cover three timepoints after pathogen inoculation, with three biological replicates for each sample. The transcriptomes in the roots of the susceptible genotype B.9 were reflected by overrepresented differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with downregulated patterns and systematic suppression of cellular processes at 48 h post inoculation (hpi). In contrast, DEGs with annotated functions, such as kinase receptors, MAPK signaling, JA biosynthesis enzymes, transcription factors, and transporters, were readily induced at 24 hpi and continued up-regulation at 48 hpi in G.935 roots. The earlier and stronger defense activation is likely associated with an effective inhibition of necrosis progression in G.935 roots. Lack of effector-triggered immunity or existence of a susceptibility gene could contribute to the severely disturbed transcriptome and susceptibility in B.9 roots. The identified DEGs constitute a valuable resource for hypothesis-driven studies to elucidate the resistance/tolerance mechanisms in apple roots and validating their potential association with resistance traits.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据