Wound callose synthesis in response to Russian wheat aphid and Bird cherry-oat aphid feeding on barley cv Clipper

Saheed, Sefiu Adekilekun; Larsson, Kristina A. E.; Delp, Gabriele; Botha, C. E. J.; Jonsson, Lisbeth; Bradley, Graeme

doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2007.02.110

Cited by 7 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Gelling saliva cements the stylet sheath to the SE, rapidly sealing the puncture site. Apoplastic callose deposits also reinforce this repair Saheed et al, 2007). In the cytoplasm, proteins aggregate at an SE lesion to occlude the wound.…”

Section: Entry Strategy 2: Plug the Holesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Avoiding Effective Defenses: Strategies Employed by Phloem-Feeding Insects

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phytophages breach the integrity of plant tissues to recover nutrients from foliage, seeds, pollen, nectar, roots, or shoots. While many herbivores cause extensive damage, phloem-feeding insects, such as aphids and whiteflies, cause modest to barely perceptible damage, respectively. Phloem-feeding insects provide additional challenges to plants as they deplete photosynthates, vector viruses, and introduce chemical and/ or protein effectors that alter plant defense signaling, infestation symptoms, and plant development (Kaloshian and Walling, 2005). When these attributes are combined with broad host ranges, breeding strategies that promote invasiveness, highly evolved feeding strategies, the ability to adapt to a wide range of plant habitats, and the emergence of insecticide-resistant strains, it is not surprising that phloem-feeding insects cause heavy losses in agriculture and horticulture (Goggin, 2007).With the tools of cell and molecular biology, genetics, genomics, electrophysiology, and biochemistry, investigators are providing novel insights into the complexity and dynamics of plant-herbivore interactions. Many of the reviews in this issue describe the initial events in perception, as well as the defense signals and biochemical reprogramming that influence direct (antibiotic and antixenotic) and indirect (interactions with natural enemies) defenses to tissue-damaging herbivores. This review will highlight intricacies of plant-/phloemfeeding insect interactions, with a primary focus on whiteflies and comparisons to aphids.Although whiteflies and aphids are members of the Hemipteran suborder Sternorrhyncha, their life cycles, endosymbiont populations, and feeding activities are distinct (Baumann, 2005;Kaloshian and Walling, 2005). These insects use highly modified mouthparts (stylets) to navigate the cuticle, epidermis, and mesophyll and establish feeding sites in phloem sieve elements (SEs).Aphid adults and nymphs are mobile and utilize several feeding sites during their lifetime. In contrast, once the whitefly nymph establishes a feeding site on a minor vein of the phloem, nymphs (first-fourth instars) feed at this site almost continuously for 21 to 30 d (Fig. 1). The immobility of nymphs, longer life cycle, and prolonged nymph feeding are features that distinguish the whitefly-plant and aphid-plant interactions.Aphids and whiteflies take advantage of their adept feeding strategies and avoid or deter many plant defenses. These insects disguise themselves and deceive their hosts and natural enemies by using their stylets to deliver salivary chemicals and/or proteins into the plant to influence wound healing, defense-signaling pathways, and volatile emissions. Similar deceptive strategies are routinely employed by phytopathogenic microbes to avoid recognition and combat plant defenses (da Cunha et al., 2007). Pathogens introduce effectors into plant cells manipulating many biochemical and cellular processes to enhance phytopathogen success on host plants. In plant-biotroph interactions, effectors influence ...

show abstract

Section: Entry Strategy 2: Plug the Holesmentioning

confidence: 86%

Avoiding Effective Defenses: Strategies Employed by Phloem-Feeding Insects

2008

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Moreover, only limited callose deposition is triggered upon interaction of barley with R. padi as compared with other cereal aphids, indicating that plant defence responses may differ depending on both host and aphid species (Saheed et al . ; Saheed et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Barley transcriptome analyses upon interaction with different aphid species identify thionins contributing to resistance

Escudero-Martinez

Morris

Hedley

et al. 2017

Plant Cell & Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aphids are phloem‐feeding insects that cause yield loss on a wide range of crops, including cereals such as barley. Whilst most aphid species are limited to one or few host species, some are able to reproduce on many plants belonging to different families. Interestingly, aphid probing behaviour can be observed on both host and non‐host species, indicating that interactions take place at the molecular level that may impact host range. Here, we aimed to gain insight into the interaction of barley with aphid species differing in their ability to infest this crop by analysing transcriptional responses. Firstly, we determined colonization efficiency, settlement and probing behaviour for the aphid species Rhopalosiphum padi, Myzus persicae and Myzus cerasi, which defined host, poor‐host and non‐host interactions, respectively. Analyses of barley transcriptional responses revealed gene sets differentially regulated upon the different barley–aphid interactions and showed that the poor‐host interaction with M. persicae resulted in the strongest regulation of genes. Interestingly, we identified several thionin genes strongly up‐regulated upon interaction with M. persicae, and to a lesser extent upon R. padi interaction. Ectopic expression of two of these genes in Nicotiana benthamiana reduced host susceptibility to M. persicae, indicating that thionins contribute to defences against aphids.

show abstract

“…One possible mechanism of phloem-based resistance might be occlusion of the phloem vessels in response to aphid feeding, which may result from callose deposition. Callose induction and formation is a defense response to phloem-sucking pests that plugs the sieve element to obstruct feeding (Botha et al, 2004, Saheed et al, 2007, Hao et al, 2008, Kuśnierczyk et al, 2008, Mondal et al, 2017. Our data clearly show callose deposition 24 h after the start of the aphid infestation on detached leaves from the resistant accession PB2013071, but not on the susceptible accession PB2013046 and also not on non-infested leaves of either accession.…”

Section: Induced Callose Deposition In the Resistant Accessionmentioning

confidence: 65%

The battle between pepper and aphid : Genetics and mechanism of host plant resistance

Sun¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Among all the resistance QTLs identified in crops, only two genes have been cloned. One is the tomato Mi-1.2 gene, which has been found to confer resistance to certain strains of M. euphorbiae (Rossi et al., 1998, Goggin et al., 2001. The other one is the Vat gene cloned from melon, conferring resistance to A. gossypii (Vos et al., 1998).These two genes, as well as the resistance QTLs Nr from lettuce and Rag1/Rag2 from soybean are dominant

show abstract

Wound callose synthesis in response to Russian wheat aphid and Bird cherry-oat aphid feeding on barley cv Clipper

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Avoiding Effective Defenses: Strategies Employed by Phloem-Feeding Insects

Avoiding Effective Defenses: Strategies Employed by Phloem-Feeding Insects

Barley transcriptome analyses upon interaction with different aphid species identify thionins contributing to resistance

The battle between pepper and aphid : Genetics and mechanism of host plant resistance

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About