Suppression of Bean Defense Responses by Pseudomonas syringae

Jakobek, Judy L.; Smith, Jennifer A.; Lindgren, P. B.

doi:10.2307/3869428

Cited by 59 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Suppressors of defence have been described (for a review, see Boller (1995)) and, in the interaction of bean leaves and Pseudomonas syringae, pre-infiltration of leaves with a compatible isolate of Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola suppressed defence-gene induction by subsequently infiltrated virulent isolates (Jakobek, Smith & Lindgren, 1993). By contrast, when mycorrhizal soybean (Wyss et al, 1991) or bean roots (this study) were infected with pathogenic fungi, they mounted a defence response.…”

Section: Compatibility and Plant Defencementioning

confidence: 96%

Plant defence genes are induced in the pathogenic interaction between bean roots and Fusarium solani, but not in the symbiotic interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant roots enter symbiotic as well as pathogenic interactions with fungi in the rhizosphere. We studied the response of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. cv. Saxa) roots to infection by the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae (Nicol. & Gerd.) Gerdemann & Trappe and the pathogen Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. f. sp. phaseoli (Burkholder) Snyder & Hansen. In a time‐course study of the symbiotic interaction between bean roots and G. mosseae, covering all stages of mycorrhiza development, we detected little change in the expression of the defence‐related genes chitinase, β‐1,3‐glucanase and phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase compared with non‐mycorrhizal control roots. The only difference observed was a transient increase in chalcone synthase transcripts at later stages of mycorrhizal root colonization. In interactions with the pathogen, a marked induction of chitinase and phenylalanine ammonia‐lyase expression was observed at the level of both the transcripts and enzyme activities. Class I β‐1,3‐glucanase levels strongly increased at the transcript level, but there was little change in the overall β‐1,3‐glucanase enzyme activity. In the non‐host interaction between common bean and Fusarium solani (Mart.) Sacc. f. sp. pisi (Linford) Snyder & Hansen defence responses increased only slightly and transiently, if at all.

show abstract

Section: Compatibility and Plant Defencementioning

confidence: 96%

Plant defence genes are induced in the pathogenic interaction between bean roots and Fusarium solani, but not in the symbiotic interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae

et al. 1998

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Bacterial effectors contribute to pathogen virulence, often by mimicking or inhibiting eukaryotic cellular functions [26][27][28] . A pathogenic P. syringae strain mutated in the TTSS, and unable to deliver any type III effectors, triggers a faster and stronger transcriptional re-programming in bean than does the isogenic wild-type strain 29 . This strain, representing the sum of all bacterial MAMPs/PAMPs, induces transcription of essentially the same genes as flg22 (refs 30-32).…”

Section: Successful Pathogens Suppress Ptimentioning

confidence: 99%

The plant immune system

Jones

Dangl

2006

Nature

11,149

9,959

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many plant-associated microbes are pathogens that impair plant growth and reproduction. Plants respond to infection using a two-branched innate immune system. The first branch recognizes and responds to molecules common to many classes of microbes, including non-pathogens. The second responds to pathogen virulence factors, either directly or through their effects on host targets. These plant immune systems, and the pathogen molecules to which they respond, provide extraordinary insights into molecular recognition, cell biology and evolution across biological kingdoms. A detailed understanding of plant immune function will underpin crop improvement for food, fibre and biofuels production.

show abstract

“…Initial observations that otherwise virulent bacteria elicit plant defences if they lack a functional T3SS indicated that effector proteins function in part to suppress plant defences 63,64 . However, the effector proteins that were responsible for the suppression activity were unknown.…”

Section: Suppression Of Host Basal Defencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bacterial elicitation and evasion of plant innate immunity

Abramovitch

Anderson

Martin

2006

Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol

377

285

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent research on plant responses to bacterial attack has identified extracellular and intracellular host receptors that recognize conserved pathogen-associated molecular patterns and more specialized virulence proteins, respectively. These findings have shed light on our understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which bacteria elicit host defences and how pathogens have evolved to evade or suppress these defences.Plants are a rich source of nutrients and water for microbes, and they are infected by many bacterial pathogens from both the Proteobacteria and Actinobacteria phyla (Supplementary information 1 (table)). Because of their broad host range, serious economic consequences and experimental tractability, the most intensively studied bacteria are members of the Proteobacteria phylum (such as Agrobacterium, Erwinia, Pseudomonas, Ralstonia and Xanthomonas) [1][2][3][4] . These pathogens are spread by wind, rain, insects or cultivation practices. They enter plant tissues either by wounds or through natural openings such as lenticels, hydathodes or stomata 5 , and they occupy the inter cellular spaces (apoplast) of various plant tissues or the xylem.Plant-pathogenic members of the Proteobacteria cause diverse disease symptoms, including specks, spots, blights, wilts, galls and cankers, and they can cause host-cell death in roots, leaves, flowers, fruits, stems and tubers (FIG. 1). These symptoms affect both yield and quality of agricultural crops and bacterial diseases can have serious economic, social and even political consequences [6][7][8] . Control of bacterial diseases is only partially effective and consists of copper-based sprays, antibiotics, biocontrol strategies, large-scale removal of infected plants and, most importantly, host genetic resistance 5 . Therefore, research on bacterial diseases of plants helps to elucidate fundamental aspects of microbial pathogenesis and associated host responses and also to develop more effective and sustainable disease-control methods.Correspondence to G.B.M. gbm7@cornell.edu. Competing interests statementThe authors declare no competing financial interests. DATABASES NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptPlant-pathogenic bacteria use virulence strategies that are either specialized to plant tissues or are broadly conserved among pathogens of both plants and animals (FIG. 1). Bacterial virulence is manifested as increases in the rate of growth or final population size, as well as by enhanced disease symptoms, which promote the spread of the pathogen through the plant or the broader environment.Unlike mammals, plants have a complex cell wall that bacteria must surmount to gain access to water and nutrients. Bacteria attack this barrier with extracellular virulence factors, such as cell wall degrading enzymes, and bypass it by the secretion of cell wall-permeable toxins 5 . However, perhaps the most effective virulence strategy, and one shared with animal bacterial pathogens, is to breach the wall by use of the type III s...

show abstract

Suppression of Bean Defense Responses by Pseudomonas syringae

Cited by 59 publications

References 0 publications

Plant defence genes are induced in the pathogenic interaction between bean roots and Fusarium solani, but not in the symbiotic interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae

Plant defence genes are induced in the pathogenic interaction between bean roots and Fusarium solani, but not in the symbiotic interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae

The plant immune system

Bacterial elicitation and evasion of plant innate immunity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About