2021
DOI: 10.1007/s00299-021-02718-0
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Influence of virus–host interactions on plant response to abiotic stress

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 14 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 264 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Although a direct comparison of the transcriptomes of Arabidopsis plants with high and low viral infections did not reveal differentially expressed genes, ArLV1 did affect drought resilience, putatively via virus-induced reduced stomatal conductance (Pasin et al ., 2020; Manacorda et al ., 2021). Next to the obvious negative impacts on plant morphology, physiology and yield (Prasad et al ., 2020), viruses are also known to affect their host positively in their tolerance to abiotic stress (Gorovits et al ., 2019; Rahman et al ., 2021; Aguilar & Lozano-Duran, 2022). Some viruses even change from parasitic to mutualistic with a change of environmental conditions (González et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although a direct comparison of the transcriptomes of Arabidopsis plants with high and low viral infections did not reveal differentially expressed genes, ArLV1 did affect drought resilience, putatively via virus-induced reduced stomatal conductance (Pasin et al ., 2020; Manacorda et al ., 2021). Next to the obvious negative impacts on plant morphology, physiology and yield (Prasad et al ., 2020), viruses are also known to affect their host positively in their tolerance to abiotic stress (Gorovits et al ., 2019; Rahman et al ., 2021; Aguilar & Lozano-Duran, 2022). Some viruses even change from parasitic to mutualistic with a change of environmental conditions (González et al ., 2021).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Although a direct comparison of the transcriptomes of A. thaliana plants with high and low viral infections did not reveal differentially expressed genes, ArLV1 does seem to have a small but significant positive effect on drought resilience, putatively via virus‐induced reduced stomatal conductance (Pasin et al ., 2020 ; Manacorda et al ., 2021 ). In addition to the obvious negative impacts on plant morphology, physiology and yield (Prasad et al ., 2020 ), viruses are also known to affect their host positively in their tolerance to abiotic stress (Gorovits et al ., 2019 ; Rahman et al ., 2021 ; Aguilar & Lozano‐Duran, 2022 ). Some viruses even change from parasitic to mutualistic with a change in environmental conditions (González et al ., 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Figure 1F represents the scenario described in Figure 1E but in the presence of SIGS targeting DCL1/2 and AGO1/2. If SIGS were applied under these circumstances, the dsRNA or siRNA taken up by the fungus may be inactivated (as observed by some plant-VSRs) via direct binding by the myco-VSR or indirectly by the VSR inactivating the DCL, AGO or RdRp (reviewed in Rahman et al, 2021). Due to the lack of research, it is unknown what the outcome would be and whether all mycoviruses (and their encoded VSRs) may have a similar or distinct impact.…”
Section: Scenarios Of Sigs In the Presence Of Mycoviruses In Fungimentioning
confidence: 99%