A Histological Evaluation of Induced Resistance to <i>Phytophthora infestans</i> (Mont.) de Bary in Potato Leaves

Strömberg, Anita; Brishammar, Sture

doi:10.1111/j.1439-0434.1993.tb01321.x

Cited by 23 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These cell wall modifications have been reported in the case of PGPR that protect plants against phytopathogens by activating ISR plant defense responses (Iavicoli et al, 2003; Desoignies et al, 2012; Weller et al, 2012; García-Gutiérrez et al, 2013). One of the consequences of ISR is thus the reinforcement of the cell wall through enhanced lignin synthesis and callose apposition (Kovats et al, 1991; Strömberg and Brishammar, 1993), which restricts the progression of phytopathogens through plant tissues (García-Gutiérrez et al, 2013). …”

Section: Impact Of Pgpr On Root System Architecture and Root Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning

Vacheron¹,

Desbrosses²,

Bouffaud³

et al. 2013

Front. Plant Sci.

1,125

647

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The rhizosphere supports the development and activity of a huge and diversified microbial community, including microorganisms capable to promote plant growth. Among the latter, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) colonize roots of monocots and dicots, and enhance plant growth by direct and indirect mechanisms. Modification of root system architecture by PGPR implicates the production of phytohormones and other signals that lead, mostly, to enhanced lateral root branching and development of root hairs. PGPR also modify root functioning, improve plant nutrition and influence the physiology of the whole plant. Recent results provided first clues as to how PGPR signals could trigger these plant responses. Whether local and/or systemic, the plant molecular pathways involved remain often unknown. From an ecological point of view, it emerged that PGPR form coherent functional groups, whose rhizosphere ecology is influenced by a myriad of abiotic and biotic factors in natural and agricultural soils, and these factors can in turn modulate PGPR effects on roots. In this paper, we address novel knowledge and gaps on PGPR modes of action and signals, and highlight recent progress on the links between plant morphological and physiological effects induced by PGPR. We also show the importance of taking into account the size, diversity, and gene expression patterns of PGPR assemblages in the rhizosphere to better understand their impact on plant growth and functioning. Integrating mechanistic and ecological knowledge on PGPR populations in soil will be a prerequisite to develop novel management strategies for sustainable agriculture.

show abstract

Section: Impact Of Pgpr On Root System Architecture and Root Structurementioning

confidence: 99%

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning

Vacheron¹,

Desbrosses²,

Bouffaud³

et al. 2013

Front. Plant Sci.

1,125

647

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…At the infection sites sugars are taken up by the attacking fungus, while the attacked plant tissues have high substrate requirements for the initiation of defense responses, e.g., the synthesis of pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins, phenylpropanoids, or papillum formation (Strömberg and Brishammar 1993;Morkunas et al 2005Morkunas and Gmerek 2007;Bolton 2009). It has been shown that the induction of defense is cost intensive (Swarbrick et al 2006).…”

Section: Sugar Sensing and Signalingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of sugar signaling in plant defense responses against fungal pathogens

2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, it seems to be not main point of defense reaction in this system, because the suppression was not dramatically enough to express the resistance. Contrast to that, callose formation, one of the defense reactions of plants against attack of pathogen (Strömberg and Brishammar, 1993; Kovats et al, 1991), was significantly increased at the penetration site on the leaves of M. luteus pre-inoculated plants at 1.0 × 10 7 cfu/ ml . Although it was not significantly increased in the plants pre-inoculated with P. putida , the callose was more formed (Fig.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 78%

Observations of Infection Structures after Inoculation withColletotrichum orbiculareon the Leaves of Cucumber Plants Pre-inoculated with Two Bacterial StrainsPseudomonas putidaorMicrococcus luteus

Jeun

Lee

2005

Mycobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Infection structures were observed at the penetration sites on the leaves of cucumber plants inoculated with Colletotrichum orbiculare using a fluorescence microscope. The cucumber plants were previously drenched with suspension of bacterial strains Pseudomonas putida or Micrococcus luteus. The plants pre-inoculated with both bacterial strains were resistant against anthracnose after inoculation with C. orbiculare. To investigate the resistance mechanism by both bacterial strains, the surface of infected leaves was observed at the different time after challenge inoculation. At 3 days after inoculation there were no differences in the germination and appressorium formation of conidia of C. orbiculare as well as in the callose formation of the plants between both bacteria pre-inoculated and non-treated. At 5 days, the germination and appressorium formation of the fungal conidia were, however, significantly decreased on the leaves of plants pre-inoculated with M. luteus at the concentration with 1.0 × 107 cfu/ml. Furthermore, callose formation of plants cells at the penetration sites was apparently increased. In contrast, there were no defense reactions of the plants at the concentration with 1.0 × 106 cfu/ml of M. luteus. Similarly, inoculation P. putida caused no plant resistance at the low concentration, whereas increase of callose formation was observed at the higher concentration. The results of this study suggest that the resistant mechanisms might be differently expressed by the concentration of pre-treatment with bacterial suspension.

show abstract

A Histological Evaluation of Induced Resistance to Phytophthora infestans (Mont.) de Bary in Potato Leaves

Cited by 23 publications

References 16 publications

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning

Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning

The role of sugar signaling in plant defense responses against fungal pathogens

Observations of Infection Structures after Inoculation withColletotrichum orbiculareon the Leaves of Cucumber Plants Pre-inoculated with Two Bacterial StrainsPseudomonas putidaorMicrococcus luteus

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About