Defense-related proteins involved in sugarcane responses to biotic stress

Abstract

Sugarcane is one of the most important agricultural crops in the world. However, pathogen infection and herbivore attack cause constant losses in yield. Plants respond to pathogen infection by inducing the expression of several protein types, such as glucanases, chitinases, thaumatins, peptidase inhibitors, defensins, catalases and glycoproteins. Proteins induced by pathogenesis are directly or indirectly involved in plant defense, leading to pathogen death or inducing other plant defense responses. Several of these proteins are induced in sugarcane by different pathogens or insects and have antifungal or insecticidal activity. In this review, defense-related proteins in sugarcane are described, with their putative mechanisms of action, pathogen targets and biotechnological perspectives.

Induced resistance in peach fruit as treated by Pichia guilliermondii and their possible mechanism

“…[38] GLU belongs to PR protein, which can inhibit pathogen growth by degrading the cell wall of pathogenic fungi or indirectly activate defense responses by releasing excitons from the cell wall. [39] A similar study also found that GLU inhibits the oxidative damage and enhances the tolerance of plant toward pathogen infection. [40] In the present result, GLU activity in peaches treated with P. guilliermondii increased during the entire storage period, thereby indicating the activation of the essential defense reactions.…”

“…PR proteins were divided into 17 different families, among which PR2 and PR3 were defined as GLU and CHI, which inhibit pathogen growth by degrading the cell wall. [24] PR1, as the marker of disease resistance, is associated with SAR. [5] PRs play a prominent part in the resistance of fruits under environmental stress at the micromolar level.…”

Antifungal activity of chitinase II against Colletotrichum falcatum Went. causing red rot disease in transgenic sugarcane

“…Several attempts, including the use of pathogenesisrelated proteins, have been made to overcome pathogenic fungi in crop plants (Souza et al, 2017). Khan et al (2016) reported the development of Rhizoctonia solani-resistant potato plants through the genetic transformation of the chitinase II gene.…”

Vias de sinalização por auxinas e sua interação com o relógio biológico de cana-de-açúcar

“…As proteínas PR já foram identificadas em resposta a infecção por fungos, oomicetos, bactérias e vírus, e a ataques de insetos e nematódeos (Cornelis van Loon, 1999;Souza et al, 2017;van Loon et al, 2006). Essas proteínas também foram detectadas em plantas após aplicação de substâncias que mimetizassem o efeito de ataque por um patógeno ou em resposta a injúrias que produzissem proteínas que se acumulam durante uma infecção (Sels et al, 2008).…”

“…Inibidores de peptidases apresentam indução transcricional após inoculação com microrganismos, ataque de inseto e injúria. Também foi observada atividade antifúngica, in vitro, para uma proteína desse grupo, assim como aumento da resistência a patógeno de uma linhagem transgênica de A. thaliana que apresentava expressão aumentada de um gene PR6 endógeno (Chassot et al, 2007;Sels et al, 2008;Souza et al, 2017).…”