Induced Disease Resistance

Pieterse, C.M.J.; Wees, Saskia C.M. Van

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08575-3_14

Cited by 13 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 65 publications

(75 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…β-1,3-glucosidases are hydrolytic enzymes that can activate phytohormonal signals and antimicrobial secondary metabolites through the removal of glycosyl residues, and enable the plant to respond immediately to pathogen invasion and activate the SA-pathway [25]. PR1 is among the best characterized PR genes and is often used as a marker for the induction of SA-dependent defence pathways and systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in plants [26]. The increases of PR1 in ASM-treated plants are consisted with ASM operating as a SA mimic [14], as well as ASM elevating PR1 in kiwifruit (shown in previous studies [15]).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Use of Aureobasidium pullulans Strain CG163 and Acibenzolar-S-Methyl for Management of Bacterial Canker in Kiwifruit

Jong

Regliński

Elmer

et al. 2019

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An isolate of Aureobasidium pullulans (strain = CG163) and the plant defence elicitor acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM) were investigated for their ability to control leaf spot in kiwifruit caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. actinidiae biovar 3 (Psa). Clonal Actinidia chinensis var. deliciosa plantlets (‘Hayward’) were treated with ASM, CG163 or ASM + CG163 at seven and one day before inoculation with Psa. ASM (0.2 g/L) was applied either as a root or foliar treatments and CG163 was applied as a foliar spray containing 2 × 107 CFU/mL. Leaf spot incidence was significantly reduced by all treatments compared with the control. The combination of ASM + CG163 had greater efficacy (75%) than either ASM (55%) or CG163 (40%) alone. Moreover, treatment efficacy correlated positively with the expression of defence-related genes: pathogenesis-related protein 1 (PR1), β-1,3-glucosidase, Glucan endo 1,3-β-glucosidase (Gluc_PrimerH) and Class IV chitinase (ClassIV_Chit), with greater gene upregulation in plants treated with ASM + CG163 than by the individual treatments. Pathogen population studies indicated that CG163 had significant suppressive activity against epiphytic populations of Psa. Endophytic populations were reduced by ASM + CG163 but not by the individual treatments, and by 96–144 h after inoculation were significantly lower than the control. Together these data suggest that ASM + CG163 have complementary modes of action that contribute to greater control of leaf spotting than either treatment alone.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Integrated Use of Aureobasidium pullulans Strain CG163 and Acibenzolar-S-Methyl for Management of Bacterial Canker in Kiwifruit

Jong

Regliński

Elmer

et al. 2019

Plants

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is evidence that the mechanisms of ISR, with signaling by JA/ET, are different from SAR, mediated by NPR1 (Spoel 2003 ; Stein et al 2008 ; Pieterse et al 2012 ; Pieterse and Van Wees 2015 ). The evidence corroborates the results of Yasuda et al ( 2009 ), in which rice plants inoculated with Azospirillum sp.…”

Section: Plant Defense Mechanisms To Biotic Stressesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Azospirillum: benefits that go far beyond biological nitrogen fixation

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The genus Azospirillum comprises plant-growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB), which have been broadly studied. The benefits to plants by inoculation with Azospirillum have been primarily attributed to its capacity to fix atmospheric nitrogen, but also to its capacity to synthesize phytohormones, in particular indole-3-acetic acid. Recently, an increasing number of studies has attributed an important role of Azospirillum in conferring to plants tolerance of abiotic and biotic stresses, which may be mediated by phytohormones acting as signaling molecules. Tolerance of biotic stresses is controlled by mechanisms of induced systemic resistance, mediated by increased levels of phytohormones in the jasmonic acid/ethylene pathway, independent of salicylic acid (SA), whereas in the systemic acquired resistance—a mechanism previously studied with phytopathogens—it is controlled by intermediate levels of SA. Both mechanisms are related to the NPR1 protein, acting as a co-activator in the induction of defense genes. Azospirillum can also promote plant growth by mechanisms of tolerance of abiotic stresses, named as induced systemic tolerance, mediated by antioxidants, osmotic adjustment, production of phytohormones, and defense strategies such as the expression of pathogenesis-related genes. The study of the mechanisms triggered by Azospirillum in plants can help in the search for more-sustainable agricultural practices and possibly reveal the use of PGPB as a major strategy to mitigate the effects of biotic and abiotic stresses on agricultural productivity.

show abstract

“…For a better understanding of possible, although still hypothetical, mechanisms of these phenomena, we highlight briefly the molecular aspects of viral infection and the ensuing plant response. As it is beyond the scope of this article to characterize in detail multi‐layered plant defence strategies, readers are referred to comprehensive reviews on this topic (Coll et al ., ; De Ronde et al ., ; Dodds and Rathjen, ; Ghoshal and Sanfaçon, ; Hou et al ., ; Huot et al ., ; Mandadi and Scholthof, ; Molnar et al ., ; Muthamilarasan and Prasad, ; Pallas and García, ; Pieterse and Van Wees, ).…”

Section: Molecular Mechanisms Of Antagonistic Interactions Between VImentioning

confidence: 99%

Antagonistic within‐host interactions between plant viruses: molecular basis and impact on viral and host fitness

Syller

Grupa

2015

Molecular Plant Pathology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Double infections of related or unrelated viruses frequently occur in single plants, the viral agents being inoculated into the host plant simultaneously (co-infection) or sequentially (super-infection). Plants attacked by viruses activate sophisticated defence pathways which operate at different levels, often at significant fitness costs, resulting in yield reduction in crop plants. The occurrence and severity of the negative effects depend on the type of within-host interaction between the infecting viruses. Unrelated viruses generally interact with each other in a synergistic manner, whereas interactions between related viruses are mostly antagonistic. These can incur substantial fitness costs to one or both of the competitors. A relatively well-known antagonistic interaction is cross-protection, also referred to as super-infection exclusion. This type of interaction occurs when a previous infection with one virus prevents or interferes with subsequent infection by a homologous second virus. The current knowledge on why and how one virus variant excludes or restricts another is scant. Super-infection exclusion between viruses has predominantly been attributed to the induction of RNA silencing, which is a major antiviral defence mechanism in plants. There are, however, presumptions that various mechanisms are involved in this phenomenon. This review outlines the current state of knowledge concerning the molecular mechanisms behind antagonistic interactions between plant viruses. Harmful or beneficial effects of these interactions on viral and host plant fitness are also characterized. Moreover, the review briefly outlines the past and present attempts to utilize antagonistic interactions among viruses to protect crop plants against destructive diseases.

show abstract

Induced Disease Resistance

Cited by 13 publications

References 65 publications

Integrated Use of Aureobasidium pullulans Strain CG163 and Acibenzolar-S-Methyl for Management of Bacterial Canker in Kiwifruit

Integrated Use of Aureobasidium pullulans Strain CG163 and Acibenzolar-S-Methyl for Management of Bacterial Canker in Kiwifruit

Azospirillum: benefits that go far beyond biological nitrogen fixation

Antagonistic within‐host interactions between plant viruses: molecular basis and impact on viral and host fitness

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About