Comparative Transcriptome Analysis between a Resistant and a Susceptible Wild Tomato Accession in Response to Phytophthora parasitica

Abstract

Phytophthora parasitica is one of the most widespread Phytophthora species, which is known to cause multiple diseases in tomato and is capable of infecting almost all plant parts. Our current understanding of tomato-Phytophthora parasitica interaction is very limited and currently nothing is known at the whole genome or transcriptome level. In this study, we have analyzed and compared the transcriptome of a resistant and a susceptible wild tomato accession in response to P. parasitica infection using the RNA-seq technology. We have identified 2657 and 3079 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in treatment vs control comparison of resistant (Sp-R) and susceptible (Sp-S) samples respectively. Functional annotation of DEGs revealed substantial transcriptional reprogramming of diverse physiological and cellular processes, particularly the biotic stress responses in both Sp-R and Sp-S upon P. parasitica treatment. However, subtle expression differences among some core plant defense related genes were identified and their possible role in resistance development against P. parasitica is discussed. Our results revealed 1173 genes that were differentially expressed only in Sp-R accession upon P. parasitica inoculation. These exclusively found DEGs in Sp-R accession included some core plant defense genes, for example, several protease inhibitors, chitinases, defensin, PR-1, a downy mildew susceptibility factor, and so on, were all highly induced. Whereas, several R genes, WRKY transcriptions factors and a powdery mildew susceptibility gene (Mlo) were highly repressed during the resistance outcome. Analysis reported here lays out a strong foundation for future studies aimed at improving genetic resistance of tomato cultivars against to Phytopphthora species.

A Genome-Wide View of Transcriptional Responses during Aphis glycines Infestation in Soybean

“…ERF genes mainly mediate pathogen-and disease-related stimuli by integrating multiple signaling pathways, such as JA, ethylene ET, and SA pathways [36]. Besides, TFs in WRKY and MYB families are also involved in plant defense response to biotic stress, such as response to Phytophthora parasitica in tomato [37], resistance response to aphid in soybean and Chrysanthemum morifolium [18,38], and response to insect attack and bacterial infection in Arabidopsis thaliana [23].…”

High throughput sequencing unravels tomato-pathogen interactions towards a sustainable plant breeding

“… 95 Phytophthora parasitica LA2093 (R) LA1581 (S) Leaves - Mitogen activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway; plant hormone signal transduction pathway (in both a susceptible and a resistant response). 94 Meloidogyne incognita M36 (R) Pusa Ruby (S) Moneymaker (S) Roots - Cell wall structure, development, primary and secondary metabolite, and defense signaling pathway (in a susceptible response). - Secondary metabolite and hormone-mediated defense responses (in a resistant response).…”

“…P. parasitica is mainly known as a root and fruit pathogen of tomato associated with Phytophthora root rot and buckeye rot diseases but leaf infection, stem canker, stem girdling, collar rot, blossom blight, and damping-off of seedlings have also been reported in tomatoes in different parts of the world 20 . To understand the molecular basis of resistance against P. parasitica , Azal Naveed and Ali 94 compared P. parasitica resistant and susceptible accessions of the wild relative tomato S. pimpinellifolium in response to infection. By comparing inoculated vs. control plants, these authors identified 2657 DEGs in the resistant accession and 3079 DEGs in the susceptible one.…”

Regulation of heat shock proteins 70 and their role in plant immunity

“…References: 1, Song et al (2015) ; 2, Noël et al . (2007) ; 3, Lyu et al (2020) ; 4, Wu et al (2019) ; 5, Góngora-Castillo et al (2012) ; 6, Saiz-Fernández et al (2020) ; 7, Gupta et al (2017) ; 8, Klink et al (2007) ; 9, Berka et al (2020) ; 10, Molitor et al (2011) ; 11, Sharma Poudel et al (2019) ; 12, C. Zhang et al (2015) ; 13, Ye et al (2011) ; 14, Hafrén et al (2010) ; 15, Caplan et al (2009) ; 16, Hýsková et al (2021b) ; 17, Crampton et al (2009) ; 18, Cerna et al (2017) ; 19, Coelho et al (2021) ; 20, Singh et al (2019) ; 21, Vitale et al (2014) ; 22, Naveed and Ali (2018) ; 23, Gorovits et al (2013) ; 24, Chen et al (2013) ; 25, Pan et al (2013) ; 26, Szajko et al (2020) ; 27, Guo et al (2021) ; 28, Yang et al (2017) ; 29, Paiva et al (2016) ; 30, Varela et al (2017) ; 31, Liu et al (2021) ; 32, Chen et al (2017) .…”