Abstract:SUMMARY
Many plants produce low-molecular-weight compounds which inhibit the growth of phytopathogenic fungi in vitro. These compounds may be preformed inhibitors that are present constitutively in healthy plants (also known as phytoanticipins), or they may be synthesized in response to pathogen attack (phytoalexins). Successful pathogens must be able to circumvent or overcome these antifungal defenses, and this review focuses on the significance of fungal resistance to plant antibiotics as a… Show more
“…The host's natural preformed and inducible fungistatic molecules or defense responses constitute a major barrier to the quiescent pathogen. Pathogens have developed several strategies to cope with these molecules (Morrisey & Osbourn, 1999): (i) detoxification of antifungal compounds (Mathews & Van Etten, 1983;Van Etten et al, 1989;Osbourn, 1996;Mayer & Staples, 2002;Schouten et al, 2002); (ii) efflux transport of antifungal compounds from the pathogen's cells (Jones & George, 2004); and (iii) suppression of the host's defenses (Williamson, 1994;Morrisey & Osbourn, 1999).…”
Section: Coping With Plant Defense Responsesmentioning
Insidious fungal infections of postharvest pathogens remain quiescent, as biotrophs, during fruit growth and harvest, but activate their development and transform to necrotrophs, which elicit decay symptoms, during ripening and senescence. Exposure of unripe hosts to pathogens quickly initiates defensive signal-transduction cascades that limit fungal growth and development, but exposure to the same pathogens during ripening and storage activates a substantially different signaling cascade that facilitates fungal colonization. The first step in the activation of quiescent infections may involve the fungal capability to cope with plant defense responses by detoxification and efflux transport of antifungals, or by overcoming the suppression of pathogenicity factors. The second step toward the activation of quiescent infections is actively modulated by the pathogen in response to a host signal(s), and includes alkalization or ammonification of the host tissue, which sensitizes the host and activates the transcription and secretion of fungal-degradative enzymes that promote maceration of the host tissue. Feedback signals involving, for example, nitrogen and sugar further enhance pH changes, synthesis of hydrolytic enzymes and saprophytic development in the macerated tissue. This review describes the coordinated series of mechanisms that regulate the activation of quiescent infections in various fruit/vegetable-pathogen interactions.
“…The host's natural preformed and inducible fungistatic molecules or defense responses constitute a major barrier to the quiescent pathogen. Pathogens have developed several strategies to cope with these molecules (Morrisey & Osbourn, 1999): (i) detoxification of antifungal compounds (Mathews & Van Etten, 1983;Van Etten et al, 1989;Osbourn, 1996;Mayer & Staples, 2002;Schouten et al, 2002); (ii) efflux transport of antifungal compounds from the pathogen's cells (Jones & George, 2004); and (iii) suppression of the host's defenses (Williamson, 1994;Morrisey & Osbourn, 1999).…”
Section: Coping With Plant Defense Responsesmentioning
Insidious fungal infections of postharvest pathogens remain quiescent, as biotrophs, during fruit growth and harvest, but activate their development and transform to necrotrophs, which elicit decay symptoms, during ripening and senescence. Exposure of unripe hosts to pathogens quickly initiates defensive signal-transduction cascades that limit fungal growth and development, but exposure to the same pathogens during ripening and storage activates a substantially different signaling cascade that facilitates fungal colonization. The first step in the activation of quiescent infections may involve the fungal capability to cope with plant defense responses by detoxification and efflux transport of antifungals, or by overcoming the suppression of pathogenicity factors. The second step toward the activation of quiescent infections is actively modulated by the pathogen in response to a host signal(s), and includes alkalization or ammonification of the host tissue, which sensitizes the host and activates the transcription and secretion of fungal-degradative enzymes that promote maceration of the host tissue. Feedback signals involving, for example, nitrogen and sugar further enhance pH changes, synthesis of hydrolytic enzymes and saprophytic development in the macerated tissue. This review describes the coordinated series of mechanisms that regulate the activation of quiescent infections in various fruit/vegetable-pathogen interactions.
“…Cyclic hydroxamic acids are found almost exclusively in the Gramineae (Frey et al, 1997). They have a 4-hydroxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one structure, and are found constitutively in wheat, rye, triticale, maize and sorghum, but are not present in barley, rice or oats (Morrissey and Osbourn, 1999;Niemeyer, 1988). In planta, hydroxamic acids are sequestered as inactive glucosides, but are hydrolysed after infection or tissue damage to aglucones, e.g.…”
SUMMARY
Take‐all, caused by the fungus Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici, is the most important root disease of wheat worldwide. Many years of intensive research, reflected by the large volume of literature on take‐all, has led to a considerable degree of understanding of many aspects of the disease. However, effective and economic control of the disease remains difficult. The application of molecular techniques to study G. graminis and related fungi has resulted in some significant advances, particularly in the development of improved methods for identification and in elucidating the role of the enzyme avenacinase as a pathogenicity determinant in the closely related oat take‐all fungus (G. graminis var. avenae). Some progress in identifying other factors that may be involved in determining host range and pathogenicity has been made, despite the difficulties of performing genetic analyses and the lack of a reliable transformation system.
“…Perhaps more intriguing is that a highly dynamic defense strategy may limit consumers' own phenotypic plasticity to counteract host resistances. Such plasticity is evident, for example, in the ability of some insects to modify digestive enzymes to reduce the impact of proteinase inhibitors (Cloutier et al 2000, Paulillo et al 2000, or the induction in some pathogens of enzymes that degrade phytoalexins (Morrissey and Osbourn 1999), induced defense mechanisms (Heath 2002), or indeed to alter constitutive antifungal compounds and use them to interfere with induced defense responses (Bouarab et al 2002). It is intriguing that recent evidence (Li et al 2002) shows that some herbivores induce detoxification systems not in response to defensive end products but to signaling molecules (SA and JA).…”
Current research into indirect phytopathogen–herbivore interactions (i.e., interactions mediated by the host plant) is carried out in two largely independent directions: ecological/mechanistic and molecular. We investigate the origin of these approaches and their strengths and weaknesses. Ecological studies have determined the effect of herbivores and phytopathogens on their host plants and are often correlative: the need for long‐term manipulative experiments is pressing. Molecular/cellular studies have concentrated on the role of signaling pathways for systemic induced resistance, mainly involving salicylic acid and jasmonic acid, and more recently the cross‐talk between these pathways. This cross‐talk demonstrates how interactions between signaling mechanisms and phytohormones could mediate plant–herbivore–pathogen interactions. A bridge between these approaches may be provided by field studies using chemical induction of defense, or investigating whole‐organism mechanisms of interactions among the three species. To determine the role of phytohormones in induced resistance in the field, researchers must combine ecological and molecular methods. We discuss how these methods can be integrated and present the concept of “kaleidoscopic defense.” Our recent molecular‐level investigations of interactions between the herbivore Gastrophysa viridula and the rust fungus Uromyces rumicis on Rumex obtusifolius, which were well studied at the mechanistic and ecological levels, illustrate the difficulty in combining these different approaches. We suggest that the choice of the right study system (possibly wild relatives of model species) is important, and that molecular studies must consider the environmental conditions under which experiments are performed. The generalization of molecular predictions to ecologically realistic settings will be facilitated by “middle‐ground studies” concentrating on the outcomes of the interactions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.