Local and systemic mycorrhiza-induced protection against the ectoparasitic nematode Xiphinema index involves priming of defence gene responses in grapevine

Abstract

The ectoparasitic dagger nematode ( Xiphinema index ), vector of Grapevine fanleaf virus (GFLV), provokes gall formation and can cause severe damage to the root system of grapevines. Mycorrhiza formation by Glomus (syn. Rhizophagus ) intraradices BEG141 reduced both gall formation on roots of the grapevine rootstock SO4 ( Vitis berlandieri × V. riparia ) and nematode number in the surrounding soil. Suppressive effects increased with time and were greater when the nematode was post-inoculated rather than co-inoculated with the arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungus. Using a split-root system, decreased X. index development was shown in mycorrhizal and non-mycorrhizal parts of mycorrhizal root systems, indicating that both local and systemic induced bioprotection mechanisms were active against the ectoparasitic nematode. Expression analyses of ESTs (expressed sequence tags) generated in an SSH (subtractive suppressive hybridization) library, representing plant genes up-regulated during mycorrhiza-induced control of X. index , and of described grapevine defence genes showed activation of chitinase 1b, pathogenesis-related 10, glutathione S -transferase, stilbene synthase 1, 5-enolpyruvyl shikimate-3-phosphate synthase, and a heat shock proein 70-interacting protein in association with the observed local and/or systemic induced bioprotection against the nematode. Overall, the data suggest priming of grapevine defence responses by the AM fungus and transmission of a plant-mediated signal to non-mycorrhizal tissues. Grapevine gene responses during AM-induced local and systemic bioprotection against X. index point to biological processes that are related either to direct effects on the nematode or to protection against nematode-imposed stress to maintain root tissue integrity.

Root Proteomic Analysis of Grapevine Rootstocks Inoculated with Rhizophagus irregularis and Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. herbemontis

“…oryzicola, which damages rice shoots. Hao et al (2012) detected upregulation of the PR-10 gene during AMF-induced bioprotection against nematode inoculation in grapevine roots, suggesting the priming effect of AMF to plant defence response, as observed in the present study in roots challenged by a fungus.…”

“…Under stress conditions, the heat shock factor induces the expression of heat shock proteins involved in plant defence response (Asthir, 2015). Mycorrhizal grapevine roots upregulated the expression of heat-shock proteins, due to inoculation with an ectoparasitic nematode (Hao et al, 2012). The spot ID 1495 was identified in the database with the molecular function of S-adenosyl-methionine-dependent methyltransferase activity.…”

“…For this reason, AMF are known as a biological control tool for use in agriculture (Gianinazzi et al, 2010;Trouvelot et al, 2015). Many studies have shown that AMF improve plant resistance to soil pathogenic fungi, including Fusarium in grapevine rootstocks and tomato plants (Dalla Costa et al, 2010;Fierro-Coronado et al, 2013), and also act against nematodes in grapevine rootstocks (Hao et al, 2012). Inoculation of grapevine rootstocks with AMF is therefore an option to reduce or neutralize damage from soil-borne diseases.…”

Molecular characterization of microbial communities in the rhizosphere soils and roots of diseased and healthy Panax notoginseng

“…AM fungi that belong to Glomeromycota associate with more than 80 % of vascular land plants and play an important role in natural ecosystems (Vigo et al 2000). AM fungi benefit plants by supplying mineral nutrients especially phosphorus (Al-Karaki 2006), helping transport water to ease drought stress (Li et al 2013) and increasing plant resistance to soil borne diseases locally or/and systemically (Hao et al 2012). However, the effect of AM fungi on root-rot of P. notoginseng is still unclear.…”

Activación de resistencia sistémica inducida en vid “Thompson Seedless”, en respuesta Pseudomonas veronii R4

“…Hao et al (2012) ), de tejido muestreado hojas (H) y raíces (R) en 'Thompson Seedless', expuestos por 5 min, 6 h y 12 h a P. veronii R4 o el control PBS tuvieron mayor concentración de ARN total a diferencia de las raíces, pero ambos casos estas concentraciones fueron inferiores a las obtenidas por Morante et al (2014), quienes lograron obtener 880 a 950 ug g -1 de ARN total a partir de un gramo de cultivo de células en suspensión de Vitis vinífera cv. Gamay, al ajuste del protocolo con tampones constituidos de (TRIS-HCL; EDTA; NaCl; CTAB).…”