Plant disease resistance

Last updated
Cankers caused by Chestnut blight, a disease that affects the chestnut tree Chestnut blight.jpg
Cankers caused by Chestnut blight, a disease that affects the chestnut tree
This diagram shows the process from fungi or bacterial attachment to the plant cell all the way to the specific type of response. PTI stands for Pattern-Triggered Immunity and ETI stands for Effector-triggered immunity. Plant Immunity Diagram.svg
This diagram shows the process from fungi or bacterial attachment to the plant cell all the way to the specific type of response. PTI stands for Pattern-Triggered Immunity and ETI stands for Effector-triggered immunity.

Plant disease resistance protects plants from pathogens in two ways: by pre-formed structures and chemicals, and by infection-induced responses of the immune system. Relative to a susceptible plant, disease resistance is the reduction of pathogen growth on or in the plant (and hence a reduction of disease), while the term disease tolerance describes plants that exhibit little disease damage despite substantial pathogen levels. Disease outcome is determined by the three-way interaction of the pathogen, the plant, and the environmental conditions (an interaction known as the disease triangle).

Contents

Defense-activating compounds can move cell-to-cell and systematically through the plant's vascular system. However, plants do not have circulating immune cells, so most cell types exhibit a broad suite of antimicrobial defenses. Although obvious qualitative differences in disease resistance can be observed when multiple specimens are compared (allowing classification as "resistant" or "susceptible" after infection by the same pathogen strain at similar inoculum levels in similar environments), a gradation of quantitative differences in disease resistance is more typically observed between plant strains or genotypes. Plants consistently resist certain pathogens but succumb to others; resistance is usually specific to certain pathogen species or pathogen strains.

Background

Plant disease resistance is crucial to the reliable production of food, and it provides significant reductions in agricultural use of land, water, fuel, and other inputs. Plants in both natural and cultivated populations carry inherent disease resistance, but this has not always protected them.

The late blight Great Famine of Ireland of the 1840s was caused by the oomycete Phytophthora infestans . The world's first mass-cultivated banana cultivar Gros Michel was lost in the 1920s to Panama disease caused by the fungus Fusarium oxysporum . The current wheat stem rust, leaf rust, and yellow stripe rust epidemics spreading from East Africa into the Indian subcontinent are caused by rust fungi Puccinia graminis and P. striiformis . Other epidemics include chestnut blight, as well as recurrent severe plant diseases such as rice blast, soybean cyst nematode, and citrus canker. [1] [2]

Plant pathogens can spread rapidly over great distances, vectored by water, wind, insects, and humans. Across large regions and many crop species, it is estimated that diseases typically reduce plant yields by 10% every year in more developed nations or agricultural systems, but yield loss to diseases often exceeds 20% in less developed settings. [1]

However, disease control is reasonably successful for most crops. Disease control is achieved by use of plants that have been bred for good resistance to many diseases, and by plant cultivation approaches such as crop rotation, pathogen-free seed, appropriate planting date and plant density, control of field moisture, and pesticide use.

Common disease resistance mechanisms

Pre-formed structures and compounds

secondary plant wall Plant cell showing primary and secondary wall by CarolineDahl.jpg
secondary plant wall

Inducible post-infection plant defenses

Immune system

The plant immune system carries two interconnected tiers of receptors, one most frequently sensing molecules outside the cell and the other most frequently sensing molecules inside the cell. Both systems sense the intruder and respond by activating antimicrobial defenses in the infected cell and neighboring cells. In some cases, defense-activating signals spread to the rest of the plant or even to neighboring plants. The two systems detect different types of pathogen molecules and classes of plant receptor proteins. [5] [6]

The first tier is primarily governed by pattern recognition receptors that are activated by recognition of evolutionarily conserved pathogen or microbial–associated molecular patterns (PAMPs or MAMPs). Activation of PRRs leads to intracellular signaling, transcriptional reprogramming, and biosynthesis of a complex output response that limits colonization. The system is known as PAMP-triggered immunity or as pattern-triggered immunity (PTI). [7] [6] [8]

The second tier, primarily governed by R gene products, is often termed effector-triggered immunity (ETI). ETI is typically activated by the presence of specific pathogen "effectors" and then triggers strong antimicrobial responses (see R gene section below).

In addition to PTI and ETI, plant defenses can be activated by the sensing of damage-associated compounds (DAMP), such as portions of the plant cell wall released during pathogenic infection. [9]

Responses activated by PTI and ETI receptors include ion channel gating, oxidative burst, cellular redox changes, or protein kinase cascades that directly activate cellular changes (such as cell wall reinforcement or antimicrobial production), or activate changes in gene expression that then elevate other defensive responses.

Plant immune systems show some mechanistic similarities with the immune systems of insects and mammals, but also exhibit many plant-specific characteristics. [10] The two above-described tiers are central to plant immunity but do not fully describe plant immune systems. In addition, many specific examples of apparent PTI or ETI violate common PTI/ETI definitions, suggesting a need for broadened definitions and/or paradigms. [11]

The term quantitative resistance (discussed below) refers to plant disease resistance that is controlled by multiple genes and multiple molecular mechanisms that each have small effects on the overall resistance trait. Quantitative resistance is often contrasted to ETI resistance mediated by single major-effect R genes.

Pattern-triggered immunity

PAMPs, conserved molecules that inhabit multiple pathogen genera, are referred to as MAMPs by many researchers. The defenses induced by MAMP perception are sufficient to repel most pathogens. However, pathogen effector proteins (see below) are adapted to suppress basal defenses such as PTI. Many receptors for MAMPs (and DAMPs) have been discovered. MAMPs and DAMPs are often detected by transmembrane receptor-kinases that carry LRR or LysM extracellular domains. [5]

Effector triggered immunity

Effector triggered immunity (ETI) is activated by the presence of pathogen effectors. The ETI response is reliant on R genes, and is activated by specific pathogen strains. Plant ETI often causes an apoptotic hypersensitive response.

R genes and R proteins

Plants have evolved R genes (resistance genes) whose products mediate resistance to specific virus, bacteria, oomycete, fungus, nematode or insect strains. R gene products are proteins that allow recognition of specific pathogen effectors, either through direct binding or by recognition of the effector's alteration of a host protein. [6] Many R genes encode NB-LRR proteins (proteins with nucleotide-binding and leucine-rich repeat domains, also known as NLR proteins or STAND proteins, among other names). Most plant immune systems carry a repertoire of 100–600 different R gene homologs. Individual R genes have been demonstrated to mediate resistance to specific virus, bacteria, oomycete, fungus, nematode or insect strains. R gene products control a broad set of disease resistance responses whose induction is often sufficient to stop further pathogen growth/spread.

Studied R genes usually confer specificity for particular strains of a pathogen species (those that express the recognized effector). As first noted by Harold Flor in his mid-20th century formulation of the gene-for-gene relationship, a plant R gene has specificity for a pathogen avirulence gene (Avr gene). Avirulence genes are now known to encode effectors. The pathogen Avr gene must have matched specificity with the R gene for that R gene to confer resistance, suggesting a receptor/ligand interaction for Avr and R genes. [10] Alternatively, an effector can modify its host cellular target (or a molecular decoy of that target), and the R gene product (NLR protein) activates defenses when it detects the modified form of the host target or decoy. [6] [12]

Effector biology

Effectors are central to the pathogenic or symbiotic potential of microbes and microscopic plant-colonizing animals such as nematodes. [13] [14] [15] Effectors typically are proteins that are delivered outside the microbe and into the host cell. These colonist-derived effectors manipulate the host's cell physiology and development. As such, effectors offer examples of co-evolution (example: a fungal protein that functions outside of the fungus but inside of plant cells has evolved to take on plant-specific functions). Pathogen host range is determined, among other things, by the presence of appropriate effectors that allow colonization of a particular host. [5] Pathogen-derived effectors are a powerful tool to identify plant functions that play key roles in disease and in disease resistance. Apparently most effectors function to manipulate host physiology to allow disease to occur. Well-studied bacterial plant pathogens typically express a few dozen effectors, often delivered into the host by a Type III secretion apparatus. [13] Fungal, oomycete and nematode plant pathogens apparently express a few hundred effectors. [14] [15]

So-called "core" effectors are defined operationally by their wide distribution across the population of a particular pathogen and their substantial contribution to pathogen virulence. Genomics can be used to identify core effectors, which can then be used to discover new R gene alleles, which can be used in plant breeding for disease resistance.

Small RNAs and RNA interference

Plant sRNA pathways are understood to be important components of pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI). [16] [17] Bacteria‐induced microRNAs (miRNAs) in Arabidopsis have been shown to influence hormonal signalling including auxin, abscisic acid (ABA), jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA). [18] [19] Advances in genome‐wide studies revealed a massive adaptation of host miRNA expression patterns after infection by fungal pathogens Fusarium virguliforme , [20] Erysiphe graminis , [21] Verticillium dahliae , [22] and Cronartium quercuum , [23] and the oomycete Phytophthora sojae . [24] Changes to sRNA expression in response to fungal pathogens indicate that gene silencing may be involved in this defense pathway. However, there is also evidence that the antifungal defense response to Colletotrichum spp. infection in maize is not entirely regulated by specific miRNA induction, but may instead act to fine-tune the balance between genetic and metabolic components upon infection.[ citation needed ]

Transport of sRNAs during infection is likely facilitated by extracellular vesicles (EVs) and multivesicular bodies (MVBs). [25] The composition of RNA in plant EVs has not been fully evaluated, but it is likely that they are, in part, responsible for trafficking RNA. Plants can transport viral RNAs, mRNAs, miRNAs and small interfering RNAs (siRNAs) systemically through the phloem. [26] This process is thought to occur through the plasmodesmata and involves RNA-binding proteins that assist RNA localization in mesophyll cells. Although they have been identified in the phloem with mRNA, there is no determinate evidence that they mediate long-distant transport of RNAs. [27] EVs may therefore contribute to an alternate pathway of RNA loading into the phloem, or could possibly transport RNA through the apoplast. [28] There is also evidence that plant EVs can allow for interspecies transfer of sRNAs by RNA interference such as Host-Induced Gene Silencing (HIGS). [29] [30] The transport of RNA between plants and fungi seems to be bidirectional as sRNAs from the fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea have been shown to target host defense genes in Arabidopsis and tomato. [31]

Species-level resistance

In a small number of cases, plant genes are effective against an entire pathogen species, even though that species is pathogenic on other genotypes of that host species. Examples include barley MLO against powdery mildew, wheat Lr34 against leaf rust and wheat Yr36 against wheat stripe rust. An array of mechanisms for this type of resistance may exist depending on the particular gene and plant-pathogen combination. Other reasons for effective plant immunity can include a lack of coadaptation (the pathogen and/or plant lack multiple mechanisms needed for colonization and growth within that host species), or a particularly effective suite of pre-formed defenses.[ citation needed ]

Signaling mechanisms

Perception of pathogen presence

Plant defense signaling is activated by the pathogen-detecting receptors that are described in an above section. [5] The activated receptors frequently elicit reactive oxygen and nitric oxide production, calcium, potassium and proton ion fluxes, altered levels of salicylic acid and other hormones and activation of MAP kinases and other specific protein kinases. [10] These events in turn typically lead to the modification of proteins that control gene transcription, and the activation of defense-associated gene expression. [8]

Transcription factors and the hormone response

Numerous genes and/or proteins as well as other molecules have been identified that mediate plant defense signal transduction. [32] [33] Cytoskeleton and vesicle trafficking dynamics help to orient plant defense responses toward the point of pathogen attack.

Mechanisms of transcription factors and hormones

Plant immune system activity is regulated in part by signaling hormones such as: [34] [35]

There can be substantial cross-talk among these pathways. [34]

Regulation by degradation

As with many signal transduction pathways, plant gene expression during immune responses can be regulated by degradation. This often occurs when hormone binding to hormone receptors stimulates ubiquitin-associated degradation of repressor proteins that block expression of certain genes. The net result is hormone-activated gene expression. Examples: [36]

Ubiquitin and E3 signaling

Ubiquitination plays a central role in cell signaling that regulates processes including protein degradation and immunological response. [37] Although one of the main functions of ubiquitin is to target proteins for destruction, it is also useful in signaling pathways, hormone release, apoptosis and translocation of materials throughout the cell. Ubiquitination is a component of several immune responses. Without ubiquitin's proper functioning, the invasion of pathogens and other harmful molecules would increase dramatically due to weakened immune defenses. [37]

This image depicts the pathways taken during responses in plant immunity. It highlights the role and effect ubiquitin has in regulating the pathway. Ubiquitin and E3 Signaling in Plant Immunity.tiff
This image depicts the pathways taken during responses in plant immunity. It highlights the role and effect ubiquitin has in regulating the pathway.
E3 signaling

The E3 ubiquitin ligase enzyme is a main component that provides specificity in protein degradation pathways, including immune signaling pathways. [36] The E3 enzyme components can be grouped by which domains they contain and include several types. [38]

These include the Ring and U-box single subunit, HECT, and CRLs. [39] [40] Plant signaling pathways including immune responses are controlled by several feedback pathways, which often include negative feedback; and they can be regulated by De-ubiquitination enzymes, degradation of transcription factors and the degradation of negative regulators of transcription. [36] [41]

Quantitative resistance

Differences in plant disease resistance are often incremental or quantitative rather than qualitative. The term quantitative resistance (QR) refers to plant disease resistance that is controlled by multiple genes and multiple molecular mechanisms that each have small or minor effects on the overall resistance trait. [42] QR is important in plant breeding because the resulting resistance is often more durable (effective for more years), and more likely to be effective against most or all strains of a particular pathogen. QR is typically effective against one pathogen species or a group of closely related species, rather than being broadly effective against multiple pathogens. [42] QR is often obtained through plant breeding without knowledge of the causal genetic loci or molecular mechanisms. QR is likely to depend on many of the plant immune system components discussed in this article, as well as traits that are unique to certain plant-pathogen pairings (such as sensitivity to certain pathogen effectors), as well as general plant traits such as leaf surface characteristics or root system or plant canopy architecture. The term QR is synonymous with minor gene resistance. [43]

Adult plant resistance and seedling resistance

Adult plant resistance (APR) is a specialist term referring to quantitative resistance that is not effective in the seedling stage but is effective throughout many remaining plant growth stages. [43] [44] [42] The difference between adult plant resistance and seedling resistance is especially important in annual crops. [45] Seedling resistance is resistance which begins in the seedling stage of plant development and continues throughout its lifetime. When used by specialists, the term does not refer to resistance that is only active during the seedling stage. "Seedling resistance" is meant to be synonymous with major gene resistance or all stage resistance (ASR), and is used as a contrast to "adult plant resistance". [43] Seedling resistance is often mediated by single R genes, but not all R genes encode seedling resistance.

Plant breeding for disease resistance

Plant breeders emphasize selection and development of disease-resistant plant lines. Plant diseases can also be partially controlled by use of pesticides and by cultivation practices such as crop rotation, tillage, planting density, disease-free seeds and cleaning of equipment, but plant varieties with inherent (genetically determined) disease resistance are generally preferred. [2] Breeding for disease resistance began when plants were first domesticated. Breeding efforts continue because pathogen populations are under selection pressure and evolve increased virulence, pathogens move (or are moved) to new areas, changing cultivation practices or climate favor some pathogens and can reduce resistance efficacy, and plant breeding for other traits can disrupt prior resistance. [46] A plant line with acceptable resistance against one pathogen may lack resistance against others.

Breeding for resistance typically includes:

Resistance is termed durable if it continues to be effective over multiple years of widespread use as pathogen populations evolve. "Vertical resistance" is specific to certain races or strains of a pathogen species, is often controlled by single R genes and can be less durable. Horizontal or broad-spectrum resistance against an entire pathogen species is often only incompletely effective, but more durable, and is often controlled by many genes that segregate in breeding populations. [2] Durability of resistance is important even when future improved varieties are expected to be on the way: The average time from human recognition of a new fungal disease threat to the release of a resistant crop for that pathogen is at least twelve years. [47] [48]

Crops such as potato, apple, banana, and sugarcane are often propagated by vegetative reproduction to preserve highly desirable plant varieties, because for these species, outcrossing seriously disrupts the preferred traits. See also asexual propagation. Vegetatively propagated crops may be among the best targets for resistance improvement by the biotechnology method of plant transformation to manage genes that affect disease resistance. [1]

Scientific breeding for disease resistance originated with Sir Rowland Biffen, who identified a single recessive gene for resistance to wheat yellow rust. Nearly every crop was then bred to include disease resistance (R) genes, many by introgression from compatible wild relatives. [1]

GM or transgenic engineered disease resistance

The term GM ("genetically modified") is often used as a synonym of transgenic to refer to plants modified using recombinant DNA technologies. Plants with transgenic/GM disease resistance against insect pests have been extremely successful as commercial products, especially in maize and cotton, and are planted annually on over 20 million hectares in over 20 countries worldwide [49] (see also genetically modified crops). Transgenic plant disease resistance against microbial pathogens was first demonstrated in 1986. Expression of viral coat protein gene sequences conferred virus resistance via small RNAs. This proved to be a widely applicable mechanism for inhibiting viral replication. [50] Combining coat protein genes from three different viruses, scientists developed squash hybrids with field-validated, multiviral resistance. Similar levels of resistance to this variety of viruses had not been achieved by conventional breeding.

A similar strategy was deployed to combat papaya ringspot virus, which by 1994 threatened to destroy Hawaii's papaya industry. Field trials demonstrated excellent efficacy and high fruit quality. By 1998 the first transgenic virus-resistant papaya was approved for sale. Disease resistance has been durable for over 15 years. Transgenic papaya accounts for ~85% of Hawaiian production. The fruit is approved for sale in the U.S., Canada, and Japan.

Potato lines expressing viral replicase sequences that confer resistance to potato leafroll virus were sold under the trade names NewLeaf Y and NewLeaf Plus, and were widely accepted in commercial production in 1999–2001, until McDonald's Corp. decided not to purchase GM potatoes and Monsanto decided to close their NatureMark potato business. [51] NewLeaf Y and NewLeaf Plus potatoes carried two GM traits, as they also expressed Bt-mediated resistance to Colorado potato beetle.

No other crop with engineered disease resistance against microbial pathogens had reached the market by 2013, although more than a dozen were in some state of development and testing.

Examples of transgenic disease resistance projects [1]
Publication yearCropDisease resistanceMechanismDevelopment status
2012 Tomato Bacterial spotR gene from pepper8 years of field trials
2012 Rice Bacterial blight and bacterial streakEngineered E geneLaboratory
2012 Wheat Powdery mildew Overexpressed R gene from wheat2 years of field trials at time of publication
2011 Apple Apple scab fungus Thionin gene from barley 4 years of field trials at time of publication
2011 Potato Potato virus Y Pathogen-derived resistance1 year of field trial at time of publication
2010Apple Fire blight Antibacterial protein from moth 12 years of field trials at time of publication
2010TomatoMultibacterial resistancePRR from ArabidopsisLaboratory scale
2010 Banana Xanthomonas wilt Novel gene from pepperNow in field trial
2009Potato Late blight R genes from wild relatives3 years of field trials
2009PotatoLate blightR gene from wild relative2 years of field trials at time of publication
2008PotatoLate blightR gene from wild relative2 years of field trials at time of publication
2008 Plum Plum pox virus Pathogen-derived resistanceRegulatory approvals, no commercial sales
2005RiceBacterial streakR gene from maizeLaboratory
2002 Barley Stem rust Resting lymphocyte kinase (RLK) gene from resistant barley cultivarLaboratory
1997PapayaRing spot virusPathogen-derived resistanceApproved and commercially sold since 1998, sold into Japan since 2012
1995SquashThree mosaic viruses Pathogen-derived resistanceApproved and commercially sold since 1994
1993PotatoPotato virus XMammalian interferon-induced enzyme3 years of field trials at time of publication

PRR transfer

Research aimed at engineered resistance follows multiple strategies. One is to transfer useful PRRs into species that lack them. Identification of functional PRRs and their transfer to a recipient species that lacks an orthologous receptor could provide a general pathway to additional broadened PRR repertoires. For example, the Arabidopsis PRR EF-Tu receptor (EFR) recognizes the bacterial translation elongation factor EF-Tu . Research performed at Sainsbury Laboratory demonstrated that deployment of EFR into either Nicotiana benthamiana or Solanum lycopersicum (tomato), which cannot recognize EF-Tu, conferred resistance to a wide range of bacterial pathogens. EFR expression in tomato was especially effective against the widespread and devastating soil bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum. [52] Conversely, the tomato PRR Verticillium 1 (Ve1) gene can be transferred from tomato to Arabidopsis, where it confers resistance to race 1 Verticillium isolates. [1]

Stacking

The second strategy attempts to deploy multiple NLR genes simultaneously, a breeding strategy known as stacking. Cultivars generated by either DNA-assisted molecular breeding or gene transfer will likely display more durable resistance, because pathogens would have to mutate multiple effector genes. DNA sequencing allows researchers to functionally “mine” NLR genes from multiple species/strains. [1]

The avrBs2 effector gene from Xanthomona perforans is the causal agent of bacterial spot disease of pepper and tomato. The first “effector-rationalized” search for a potentially durable R gene followed the finding that avrBs2 is found in most disease-causing Xanthomonas species and is required for pathogen fitness. The Bs2 NLR gene from the wild pepper, Capsicum chacoense , was moved into tomato, where it inhibited pathogen growth. Field trials demonstrated robust resistance without bactericidal chemicals. However, rare strains of Xanthomonas overcame Bs2-mediated resistance in pepper by acquisition of avrBs2 mutations that avoid recognition but retain virulence. Stacking R genes that each recognize a different core effector could delay or prevent adaptation. [1]

More than 50 loci in wheat strains confer disease resistance against wheat stem, leaf and yellow stripe rust pathogens. The Stem rust 35 (Sr35) NLR gene, cloned from a diploid relative of cultivated wheat, Triticum monococcum , provides resistance to wheat rust isolate Ug99. Similarly, Sr33, from the wheat relative Aegilops tauschii , encodes a wheat ortholog to barley Mla powdery mildew–resistance genes. Both genes are unusual in wheat and its relatives. Combined with the Sr2 gene that acts additively with at least Sr33, they could provide durable disease resistance to Ug99 and its derivatives. [1]

Executor genes

Another class of plant disease resistance genes opens a “trap door” that quickly kills invaded cells, stopping pathogen proliferation. Xanthomonas and Ralstonia transcription activator–like (TAL) effectors are DNA-binding proteins that activate host gene expression to enhance pathogen virulence. Both the rice and pepper lineages independently evolved TAL-effector binding sites that instead act as an executioner that induces hypersensitive host cell death when up-regulated. Xa27 from rice and Bs3 and Bs4c from pepper, are such “executor” (or "executioner") genes that encode non-homologous plant proteins of unknown function. Executor genes are expressed only in the presence of a specific TAL effector. [1]

Engineered executor genes were demonstrated by successfully redesigning the pepper Bs3 promoter to contain two additional binding sites for TAL effectors from disparate pathogen strains. Subsequently, an engineered executor gene was deployed in rice by adding five TAL effector binding sites to the Xa27 promoter. The synthetic Xa27 construct conferred resistance against Xanthomonas bacterial blight and bacterial leaf streak species. [1]

Host susceptibility alleles

Most plant pathogens reprogram host gene expression patterns to directly benefit the pathogen. Reprogrammed genes required for pathogen survival and proliferation can be thought of as “disease-susceptibility genes.” Recessive resistance genes are disease-susceptibility candidates. For example, a mutation disabled an Arabidopsis gene encoding pectate lyase (involved in cell wall degradation), conferring resistance to the powdery mildew pathogen Golovinomyces cichoracearum . Similarly, the Barley MLO gene and spontaneously mutated pea and tomato MLO orthologs also confer powdery mildew resistance. [1]

Lr34 is a gene that provides partial resistance to leaf and yellow rusts and powdery mildew in wheat. Lr34 encodes an adenosine triphosphate (ATP)–binding cassette (ABC) transporter. The dominant allele that provides disease resistance was recently found in cultivated wheat (not in wild strains) and, like MLO, provides broad-spectrum resistance in barley. [1]

Natural alleles of host translation elongation initiation factors eif4e and eif4g are also recessive viral-resistance genes. Some have been deployed to control potyviruses in barley, rice, tomato, pepper, pea, lettuce, and melon. The discovery prompted a successful mutant screen for chemically induced eif4e alleles in tomato. [1]

Natural promoter variation can lead to the evolution of recessive disease-resistance alleles. For example, the recessive resistance gene xa13 in rice is an allele of Os-8N3. Os-8N3 is transcriptionally activated by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae strains that express the TAL effector PthXo1. The xa13 gene has a mutated effector-binding element in its promoter that eliminates PthXo1 binding and renders these lines resistant to strains that rely on PthXo1. This finding also demonstrated that Os-8N3 is required for susceptibility. [1]

Xa13/Os-8N3 is required for pollen development, showing that such mutant alleles can be problematic should the disease-susceptibility phenotype alter function in other processes. However, mutations in the Os11N3 (OsSWEET14) TAL effector–binding element were made by fusing TAL effectors to nucleases (TALENs). Genome-edited rice plants with altered Os11N3 binding sites remained resistant to Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, but still provided normal development function. [1]

Gene silencing

RNA silencing-based resistance is a powerful tool for engineering resistant crops. The advantage of RNAi as a novel gene therapy against fungal, viral, and bacterial infection in plants lies in the fact that it regulates gene expression via messenger RNA degradation, translation repression and chromatin remodelling through small non-coding RNAs. Mechanistically, the silencing processes are guided by processing products of the double-stranded RNA (dsRNA) trigger, which are known as small interfering RNAs and microRNAs. [53]

Temperature Effects on Virus Resistance

Temperature significantly affects plant resistance to viruses. For example, plants with the N gene for tobacco develop tolerance to tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) but become systemically infected at temperatures above 28°C. Similarly, Capsicum chinense plants carrying the Tsw gene can become systemically infected with Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) at 32°C. In the case of Beet necrotic yellow vein virus (BNYVV), plants expressing the BvGLYR1 gene showed higher virus accumulation at 22°C compared to 30°C, indicating that temperature influences the effectiveness of this gene in virus resistance [54] .

Host range

Among the thousands of species of plant pathogenic microorganisms, only a small minority have the capacity to infect a broad range of plant species. Most pathogens instead exhibit a high degree of host-specificity. Non-host plant species are often said to express non-host resistance. The term host resistance is used when a pathogen species can be pathogenic on the host species but certain strains of that plant species resist certain strains of the pathogen species. The causes of host resistance and non-host resistance can overlap. Pathogen host range is determined, among other things, by the presence of appropriate effectors that allow colonization of a particular host. [5] Pathogen host range can change quite suddenly if, for example, the pathogen's capacity to synthesize a host-specific toxin or effector is gained by gene shuffling/mutation, or by horizontal gene transfer. [55] [56]

Epidemics and population biology

Native populations are often characterized by substantial genotype diversity and dispersed populations (growth in a mixture with many other plant species). They also have undergone of plant-pathogen coevolution. Hence as long as novel pathogens are not introduced/do not evolve, such populations generally exhibit only a low incidence of severe disease epidemics. [57]

Monocrop agricultural systems provide an ideal environment for pathogen evolution, because they offer a high density of target specimens with similar/identical genotypes. [57] The rise in mobility stemming from modern transportation systems provides pathogens with access to more potential targets. [57] Climate change can alter the viable geographic range of pathogen species and cause some diseases to become a problem in areas where the disease was previously less important. [57]

These factors make modern agriculture more prone to disease epidemics. Common solutions include constant breeding for disease resistance, use of pesticides, use of border inspections and plant import restrictions, maintenance of significant genetic diversity within the crop gene pool (see crop diversity), and constant surveillance to accelerate initiation of appropriate responses. Some pathogen species have much greater capacity to overcome plant disease resistance than others, often because of their ability to evolve rapidly and to disperse broadly. [57]

Case Study of American Chestnut Blight

Chestnut blight was first noticed in American Chestnut trees that were growing in what is now known as the Bronx Zoo in the year 1904. For years following this incident, it was argued as to what the identity of the pathogen was, as well as the appropriate approach to its control. The earliest attempts to fix the problem on the chestnut involved chemical solutions or physical ones. They attempted to use fungicides, cut limbs off of trees to stop the infection, and completely remove infected trees from habitations to not allow them to infect the others. All of these strategies ended up unsuccessful. Even quarantine measures were put into place which were helped by the passage of Plant Quarantine Act. Chestnut blight still proved to be a huge problem as it rapidly moved through the densely populated forests of chestnut trees. In 1914, the idea was considered to induce blight resistance to the trees through various different means and breeding mechanisms. [58]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Immune system</span> Biological system protecting an organism against disease

The immune system is a network of biological systems that protects an organism from diseases. It detects and responds to a wide variety of pathogens, from viruses to bacteria, as well as cancer cells, parasitic worms, and also objects such as wood splinters, distinguishing them from the organism's own healthy tissue. Many species have two major subsystems of the immune system. The innate immune system provides a preconfigured response to broad groups of situations and stimuli. The adaptive immune system provides a tailored response to each stimulus by learning to recognize molecules it has previously encountered. Both use molecules and cells to perform their functions.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Toll-like receptor</span> Class of immune system proteins

Toll-like receptors (TLRs) are a class of proteins that play a key role in the innate immune system. They are single-spanning receptors usually expressed on sentinel cells such as macrophages and dendritic cells, that recognize structurally conserved molecules derived from microbes. Once these microbes have reached physical barriers such as the skin or intestinal tract mucosa, they are recognized by TLRs, which activate immune cell responses. The TLRs include TLR1, TLR2, TLR3, TLR4, TLR5, TLR6, TLR7, TLR8, TLR9, TLR10, TLR11, TLR12, and TLR13. Humans lack genes for TLR11, TLR12 and TLR13 and mice lack a functional gene for TLR10. The receptors TLR1, TLR2, TLR4, TLR5, TLR6, and TLR10 are located on the cell membrane, whereas TLR3, TLR7, TLR8, and TLR9 are located in intracellular vesicles.

<i>Lassa mammarenavirus</i> Type of viral hemorrhagic fever

Lassa mammarenavirus (LASV) is an arenavirus that causes Lassa hemorrhagic fever, a type of viral hemorrhagic fever (VHF), in humans and other primates. Lassa mammarenavirus is an emerging virus and a select agent, requiring Biosafety Level 4-equivalent containment. It is endemic in West African countries, especially Sierra Leone, the Republic of Guinea, Nigeria, and Liberia, where the annual incidence of infection is between 300,000 and 500,000 cases, resulting in 5,000 deaths per year.

Viral pathogenesis is the study of the process and mechanisms by which viruses cause diseases in their target hosts, often at the cellular or molecular level. It is a specialized field of study in virology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adaptive immune system</span> Subsystem of the immune system

The adaptive immune system, AIS, also known as the acquired immune system, or specific immune system is a subsystem of the immune system that is composed of specialized cells, organs, and processes that eliminate pathogens specifically. The acquired immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies found in vertebrates.

<i>Magnaporthe grisea</i> Blast, fungal disease of rice & wheat

Magnaporthe grisea, also known as rice blast fungus, rice rotten neck, rice seedling blight, blast of rice, oval leaf spot of graminea, pitting disease, ryegrass blast, Johnson spot, neck blast, wheat blast and Imochi (稲熱), is a plant-pathogenic fungus and model organism that causes a serious disease affecting rice. It is now known that M. grisea consists of a cryptic species complex containing at least two biological species that have clear genetic differences and do not interbreed. Complex members isolated from Digitaria have been more narrowly defined as M. grisea. The remaining members of the complex isolated from rice and a variety of other hosts have been renamed Magnaporthe oryzae, within the same M. grisea complex. Confusion on which of these two names to use for the rice blast pathogen remains, as both are now used by different authors.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Innate immune system</span> Immunity strategy in living beings

The innate immune system or nonspecific immune system is one of the two main immunity strategies in vertebrates. The innate immune system is an alternate defense strategy and is the dominant immune system response found in plants, fungi, prokaryotes, and invertebrates.

Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) is a "whole-plant" resistance response that occurs following an earlier localized exposure to a pathogen. SAR is analogous to the innate immune system found in animals, and although there are many shared aspects between the two systems, it is thought to be a result of convergent evolution. The systemic acquired resistance response is dependent on the plant hormone, salicylic acid.

Antigenic variation or antigenic alteration refers to the mechanism by which an infectious agent such as a protozoan, bacterium or virus alters the proteins or carbohydrates on its surface and thus avoids a host immune response, making it one of the mechanisms of antigenic escape. It is related to phase variation. Antigenic variation not only enables the pathogen to avoid the immune response in its current host, but also allows re-infection of previously infected hosts. Immunity to re-infection is based on recognition of the antigens carried by the pathogen, which are "remembered" by the acquired immune response. If the pathogen's dominant antigen can be altered, the pathogen can then evade the host's acquired immune system. Antigenic variation can occur by altering a variety of surface molecules including proteins and carbohydrates. Antigenic variation can result from gene conversion, site-specific DNA inversions, hypermutation, or recombination of sequence cassettes. The result is that even a clonal population of pathogens expresses a heterogeneous phenotype. Many of the proteins known to show antigenic or phase variation are related to virulence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Hypersensitive response</span>

Hypersensitive response (HR) is a mechanism used by plants to prevent the spread of infection by microbial pathogens. HR is characterized by the rapid death of cells in the local region surrounding an infection and it serves to restrict the growth and spread of pathogens to other parts of the plant. It is analogous to the innate immune system found in animals, and commonly precedes a slower systemic response, which ultimately leads to systemic acquired resistance (SAR). HR can be observed in the vast majority of plant species and is induced by a wide range of plant pathogens such as oomycetes, viruses, fungi and even insects.

The gene-for-gene relationship is a concept in plant pathology that plants and their diseases each have single genes that interact with each other during an infection. It was proposed by Harold Henry Flor who was working with rust (Melampsora lini) of flax (Linum usitatissimum). Flor showed that the inheritance of both resistance in the host and parasite ability to cause disease is controlled by pairs of matching genes. One is a plant gene called the resistance (R) gene. The other is a parasite gene called the avirulence (Avr) gene. Plants producing a specific R gene product are resistant towards a pathogen that produces the corresponding Avr gene product. Gene-for-gene relationships are a widespread and very important aspect of plant disease resistance. Another example can be seen with Lactuca serriola versus Bremia lactucae.

<i>Pseudomonas syringae</i> Species of bacterium

Pseudomonas syringae is a rod-shaped, Gram-negative bacterium with polar flagella. As a plant pathogen, it can infect a wide range of species, and exists as over 50 different pathovars, all of which are available to researchers from international culture collections such as the NCPPB, ICMP, and others.

Plant disease epidemiology is the study of disease in plant populations. Much like diseases of humans and other animals, plant diseases occur due to pathogens such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, oomycetes, nematodes, phytoplasmas, protozoa, and parasitic plants. Plant disease epidemiologists strive for an understanding of the cause and effects of disease and develop strategies to intervene in situations where crop losses may occur. Destructive and non-destructive methods are used to detect diseases in plants. Additionally, understanding the responses of the immune system in plants will further benefit and limit the loss of crops. Typically successful intervention will lead to a low enough level of disease to be acceptable, depending upon the value of the crop.

Resistance genes (R-Genes) are genes in plant genomes that convey plant disease resistance against pathogens by producing R proteins. The main class of R-genes consist of a nucleotide binding domain (NB) and a leucine rich repeat (LRR) domain(s) and are often referred to as (NB-LRR) R-genes or NLRs. Generally, the NB domain binds either ATP/ADP or GTP/GDP. The LRR domain is often involved in protein-protein interactions as well as ligand binding. NB-LRR R-genes can be further subdivided into toll interleukin 1 receptor (TIR-NB-LRR) and coiled-coil (CC-NB-LRR).

Biotic stress is stress that occurs as a result of damage done to an organism by other living organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, parasites, beneficial and harmful insects, weeds, and cultivated or native plants. It is different from abiotic stress, which is the negative impact of non-living factors on the organisms such as temperature, sunlight, wind, salinity, flooding and drought. The types of biotic stresses imposed on an organism depend the climate where it lives as well as the species' ability to resist particular stresses. Biotic stress remains a broadly defined term and those who study it face many challenges, such as the greater difficulty in controlling biotic stresses in an experimental context compared to abiotic stress.

In plant biology, elicitors are extrinsic or foreign molecules often associated with plant pests, diseases or synergistic organisms. Elicitor molecules can attach to special receptor proteins located on plant cell membranes. These receptors are able to recognize the molecular pattern of elicitors and trigger intracellular defence signalling via the octadecanoid pathway. This response results in the enhanced synthesis of metabolites which reduce damage and increase resistance to pest, disease or environmental stress. This is an immune response called pattern triggered immunity (PTI).

In biology, a pathogen, in the oldest and broadest sense, is any organism or agent that can produce disease. A pathogen may also be referred to as an infectious agent, or simply a germ.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Effector-triggered immunity</span>

Effector-triggered immunity (ETI) is one of the pathways, along with the pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) pathway, by which the innate immune system recognises pathogenic organisms and elicits a protective immune response. ETI is elicited when an effector protein secreted by a pathogen into the host cell is successfully recognised by the host. Alternatively, effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS) can occur if an effector protein can block the immune response triggered by pattern recognition receptors (PRR) and evade immunity, allowing the pathogen to propagate in the host.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">EF-Tu receptor</span> Pattern-recognition receptor (PRR)

EF-Tu receptor, abbreviated as EFR, is a pattern-recognition receptor (PRR) that binds to the prokaryotic protein EF-Tu in Arabidopsis thaliana. This receptor is an important part of the plant immune system as it allows the plant cells to recognize and bind to EF-Tu, preventing genetic transformation by and protein synthesis in pathogens such as Agrobacterium.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Fungal effectors</span> Molecules secreted by pathogenic fungi to modulate the hosts immune response

Fungal effectors are proteins or non-proteinaceous molecules secreted by pathogenic fungi into a host organism in order to modulate the host's immune response.

References

  1. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 Dangl, J. L.; Horvath, D. M.; Staskawicz, B. J. (2013). "Pivoting the Plant Immune System from Dissection to Deployment". Science. 341 (6147): 746–751. Bibcode:2013Sci...341..746D. doi:10.1126/science.1236011. PMC   3869199 . PMID   23950531.
  2. 1 2 3 Agrios, George N. (2005). Plant Pathology, Fifth Edition. Academic Press. ISBN   978-0120445653.
  3. ↑ Lutz, Diana (2012). Key part of plants' rapid response system revealed Archived 2023-04-18 at the Wayback Machine . Washington University in St. Louis.
  4. 1 2 Dadakova, K.; Havelkova, M.; Kurkova, B.; Tlolkova, I.; Kasparovsky, T.; Zdrahal, Z.; Lochman, J. (2015-04-24). "Proteome and transcript analysis of Vitis vinifera cell cultures subjected to Botrytis cinerea infection". Journal of Proteomics. 119: 143–153. doi:10.1016/j.jprot.2015.02.001. PMID   25688916.
  5. 1 2 3 4 5 Dodds, P. N.; Rathjen, J. P. (2010). "Plant immunity: Towards an integrated view of plant–pathogen interactions". Nature Reviews Genetics. 11 (8): 539–548. doi:10.1038/nrg2812. hdl: 1885/29324 . PMID   20585331. S2CID   8989912.
  6. 1 2 3 4 Jones, J. D.; Dangl, J.L. (2006). "The plant immune system". Nature. 444 (7117): 323–329. Bibcode:2006Natur.444..323J. doi: 10.1038/nature05286 . PMID   17108957.
  7. ↑ Couto, D.; Zipfel, C. (2016). "Regulation of pattern recognition receptor signalling in plants". Nature Reviews Immunology. 16 (9): 537–552. doi:10.1038/nri.2016.77. PMID   27477127. S2CID   21610374.
  8. 1 2 Li, Bo; Meng, Xiangzong; Shan, Libo; He, Ping (May 2016). "Transcriptional Regulation of Pattern-Triggered Immunity in Plants". Cell Host & Microbe. 19 (5): 641–650. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2016.04.011. PMC   5049704 . PMID   27173932.
  9. ↑ Molina, Antonio; Miedes, Eva; Bacete, Laura; Rodríguez, Tinguaro; Mélida, Hugo; Denancé, Nicolas; Sánchez-Vallet, Andrea; Rivière, Marie-Pierre; López, Gemma; Freydier, Amandine; Barlet, Xavier; Pattathil, Sivakumar; Hahn, Michael; Goffner, Deborah (2021-02-02). "Arabidopsis cell wall composition determines disease resistance specificity and fitness". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 118 (5): e2010243118. Bibcode:2021PNAS..11810243M. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2010243118 . ISSN   0027-8424. PMC   7865177 . PMID   33509925.
  10. 1 2 3 Nürnberger, Thorsten; Brunner, Frédéric; Kemmerling, Birgit; Piater, Lizelle (April 2004). "Innate immunity in plants and animals: striking similarities and obvious differences". Immunological Reviews. 198 (1): 249–266. doi:10.1111/j.0105-2896.2004.0119.x. PMID   15199967. S2CID   32547933.
  11. ↑ Thomma, B.; Nurnberger, T.; Joosten, M. (2011). "Of PAMPs and Effectors: The Blurred PTI-ETI Dichotomy". The Plant Cell. 23 (4): 4–15. Bibcode:2011PlanC..23....4T. doi:10.1105/tpc.110.082602. PMC   3051239 . PMID   21278123.
  12. ↑ Duxbury, Zane; Ma, Yan; Furzer, Oliver J.; Huh, Sung Un; Cevik, Volkan; Jones, Jonathan D.G.; Sarris, Panagiotis F. (2016-06-24). "Pathogen perception by NLRs in plants and animals: Parallel worlds". BioEssays . 38 (8). Wiley: 769–781. doi:10.1002/bies.201600046. ISSN   0265-9247. PMID   27339076. S2CID   3810233.
  13. 1 2 Lindeberg, Magdalen; Cunnac, Sébastien; Collmer, Alan (April 2012). "Pseudomonas syringae type III effector repertoires: last words in endless arguments". Trends in Microbiology. 20 (4): 199–208. doi:10.1016/j.tim.2012.01.003. PMID   22341410.
  14. 1 2 Rafiqi, Maryam; Ellis, Jeffrey G; Ludowici, Victoria A.; Hardham, Adrienne R.; Dodds, Peter N. (2012). "Challenges and progress towards understanding the role of effectors in plant–fungal interactions". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 15 (4): 477–482. Bibcode:2012COPB...15..477R. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2012.05.003. PMID   22658704.
  15. 1 2 Hewezi, Tarek; Baum, Thomas J. (January 2013). "Manipulation of Plant Cells by Cyst and Root-Knot Nematode Effectors". Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 26 (1): 9–16. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-05-12-0106-FI . PMID   22809272.
  16. ↑ Jin, Hailing (2008-07-11). "Endogenous small RNAs and antibacterial immunity in plants". FEBS Letters. 582 (18): 2679–2684. Bibcode:2008FEBSL.582.2679J. doi:10.1016/j.febslet.2008.06.053. ISSN   0014-5793. PMC   5912937 . PMID   18619960.
  17. ↑ Padmanabhan, Chellappan; Zhang, Xiaoming; Jin, Hailing (August 2009). "Host small RNAs are big contributors to plant innate immunity". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 12 (4): 465–472. Bibcode:2009COPB...12..465P. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2009.06.005. ISSN   1369-5266. PMID   19608454.
  18. ↑ Zhang, Weixiong; Gao, Shang; Zhou, Xiang; Chellappan, Padmanabhan; Chen, Zheng; Zhou, Xuefeng; Zhang, Xiaoming; Fromuth, Nyssa; Coutino, Gabriela (2010-12-12). "Bacteria-responsive microRNAs regulate plant innate immunity by modulating plant hormone networks". Plant Molecular Biology. 75 (1–2): 93–105. doi:10.1007/s11103-010-9710-8. ISSN   0167-4412. PMC   3005105 . PMID   21153682.
  19. ↑ Boccara, Martine; Sarazin, Alexis; Thiébeauld, Odon; Jay, Florence; Voinnet, Olivier; Navarro, Lionel; Colot, Vincent (2014-01-16). "The Arabidopsis miR472-RDR6 Silencing Pathway Modulates PAMP- and Effector-Triggered Immunity through the Post-transcriptional Control of Disease Resistance Genes". PLOS Pathogens. 10 (1): e1003883. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003883 . ISSN   1553-7374. PMC   3894208 . PMID   24453975. (Erratum:  doi:10.1371/journal.ppat.1004814, PMID   25859662,  Retraction Watch)
  20. ↑ Radwan, Osman; Liu, Yu; Clough, Steven J. (August 2011). "Transcriptional Analysis of Soybean Root Response to Fusarium virguliforme, the Causal Agent of Sudden Death Syndrome". Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions. 24 (8): 958–972. doi: 10.1094/mpmi-11-10-0271 . PMID   21751852.
  21. ↑ Xin, Mingming; Wang, Yu; Yao, Yingyin; Xie, Chaojie; Peng, Huiru; Ni, Zhongfu; Sun, Qixin (2010). "Diverse set of microRNAs are responsive to powdery mildew infection and heat stress in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.)". BMC Plant Biology. 10 (1): 123. doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-10-123 . ISSN   1471-2229. PMC   3095282 . PMID   20573268.
  22. ↑ Yin, Zujun; Li, Yan; Han, Xiulan; Shen, Fafu (2012-04-25). "Genome-Wide Profiling of miRNAs and Other Small Non-Coding RNAs in the Verticillium dahliae–Inoculated Cotton Roots". PLOS ONE. 7 (4): e35765. Bibcode:2012PLoSO...735765Y. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0035765 . ISSN   1932-6203. PMC   3338460 . PMID   22558219.
  23. ↑ Lu, Shanfa; Sun, Ying-Hsuan; Amerson, Henry; Chiang, Vincent L. (2007-08-07). "MicroRNAs in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) and their association with fusiform rust gall development". The Plant Journal. 51 (6): 1077–1098. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2007.03208.x . ISSN   0960-7412. PMID   17635765.
  24. ↑ Guo, Na; Ye, Wen-Wu; Wu, Xiao-Ling; Shen, Dan-Yu; Wang, Yuan-Chao; Xing, Han; Dou, Dao-Long (November 2011). "Microarray profiling reveals microRNAs involving soybean resistance to Phytophthora sojae". Genome. 54 (11): 954–958. doi:10.1139/g11-050. ISSN   0831-2796. PMID   21995769.
  25. ↑ Micali, Cristina O.; Neumann, Ulla; Grunewald, Dorit; Panstruga, Ralph; O'Connell, Richard (2010-10-28). "Biogenesis of a specialized plant-fungal interface during host cell internalization of Golovinomyces orontii haustoria". Cellular Microbiology. 13 (2): 210–226. doi: 10.1111/j.1462-5822.2010.01530.x . ISSN   1462-5814. PMID   20880355. S2CID   39002035.
  26. ↑ Kehr, J.; Buhtz, A. (2007-12-18). "Long distance transport and movement of RNA through the phloem". Journal of Experimental Botany. 59 (1): 85–92. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erm176 . ISSN   0022-0957. PMID   17905731.
  27. ↑ Gómez, G.; Torres, H.; Pallás, V. (2004-11-29). "Identification of translocatable RNA-binding phloem proteins from melon, potential components of the long-distance RNA transport system". The Plant Journal. 41 (1): 107–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313x.2004.02278.x . ISSN   0960-7412. PMID   15610353.
  28. ↑ Rutter, Brian D; Innes, Roger W (August 2018). "Extracellular vesicles as key mediators of plant–microbe interactions". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 44: 16–22. Bibcode:2018COPB...44...16R. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2018.01.008 . ISSN   1369-5266. PMID   29452903. S2CID   3377305.
  29. ↑ Ghag, Siddhesh B. (December 2017). "Host induced gene silencing, an emerging science to engineer crop resistance against harmful plant pathogens". Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology. 100: 242–254. Bibcode:2017PMPP..100..242G. doi:10.1016/j.pmpp.2017.10.003.
  30. ↑ Nowara, Daniela; Gay, Alexandra; Lacomme, Christophe; Shaw, Jane; Ridout, Christopher; Douchkov, Dimitar; Hensel, Götz; Kumlehn, Jochen; Schweizer, Patrick (September 2010). "HIGS: Host-Induced Gene Silencing in the Obligate Biotrophic Fungal PathogenBlumeria graminis". The Plant Cell. 22 (9): 3130–3141. Bibcode:2010PlanC..22.3130N. doi:10.1105/tpc.110.077040. ISSN   1040-4651. PMC   2965548 . PMID   20884801.
  31. ↑ Weiberg, Arne; Wang, Ming; Lin, Feng-Mao; Zhao, Hongwei; Zhang, Zhihong; Kaloshian, Isgouhi; Huang, Hsien-Da; Jin, Hailing (2013-10-03). "Fungal Small RNAs Suppress Plant Immunity by Hijacking Host RNA Interference Pathways". Science. 342 (6154): 118–123. Bibcode:2013Sci...342..118W. doi:10.1126/science.1239705. ISSN   0036-8075. PMC   4096153 . PMID   24092744.
  32. ↑ Hammond-Kosack, Kim E; Parker, Jane E (April 2003). "Deciphering plant–pathogen communication: fresh perspectives for molecular resistance breeding". Current Opinion in Biotechnology. 14 (2): 177–193. doi:10.1016/s0958-1669(03)00035-1. PMID   12732319.
  33. ↑ Dadakova, Katerina; Klempova, Jitka; Jendrisakova, Tereza; Lochman, Jan; Kasparovsky, Tomas (2013-12-01). "Elucidation of signaling molecules involved in ergosterol perception in tobacco". Plant Physiology and Biochemistry. 73: 121–127. Bibcode:2013PlPB...73..121D. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2013.09.009. PMID   24095918.
  34. 1 2 Moore, John W.; Loake, Gary J.; Spoel, Steven H. (August 2011). "Transcription Dynamics in Plant Immunity". The Plant Cell. 23 (8): 2809–2820. Bibcode:2011PlanC..23.2809M. doi:10.1105/tpc.111.087346. PMC   3180793 . PMID   21841124.
  35. ↑ Bürger, Marco; Chory, Joanne (2019-08-14). "Stressed Out About Hormones: How Plants Orchestrate Immunity". Cell Host & Microbe. 26 (2): 163–172. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2019.07.006. PMC   7228804 . PMID   31415749.
  36. 1 2 3 Sadanandom, Ari; Bailey, Mark; Ewan, Richard; Lee, Jack; Nelis, Stuart (October 2012). "The ubiquitin–proteasome system: central modifier of plant signalling". New Phytologist. 196 (1): 13–28. Bibcode:2012NewPh.196...13S. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2012.04266.x . PMID   22897362.
  37. 1 2 Trujillo, M.; Shirasu, K. (August 2010). "Ubiquitination in plant immunity". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13 (4): 402–408. Bibcode:2010COPB...13..402T. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.002. PMID   20471305.
  38. ↑ Craig, A.; Ewan, R.; Mesmar, J.; Gudipati, V.; Sadanandom, A. (1 March 2009). "E3 ubiquitin ligases and plant innate immunity". Journal of Experimental Botany. 60 (4): 1123–1132. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erp059 . PMID   19276192.
  39. ↑ Moon, J. (1 December 2004). "The Ubiquitin-Proteasome Pathway and Plant Development". The Plant Cell Online. 16 (12): 3181–3195. Bibcode:2004PlanC..16.3181M. doi:10.1105/tpc.104.161220. PMC   535867 . PMID   15579807.
  40. ↑ Trujillo, Marco; Shirasu, Ken (1 August 2010). "Ubiquitination in plant immunity". Current Opinion in Plant Biology. 13 (4): 402–408. Bibcode:2010COPB...13..402T. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.002. PMID   20471305.
  41. ↑ Shirsekar, Gautam; Dai, Liangying; Hu, Yajun; Wang, Xuejun; Zeng, Lirong; Wang, Guo-Liang (February 2010). "Role of Ubiquitination in Plant Innate Immunity and Pathogen Virulence". Journal of Plant Biology. 53 (1): 10–18. Bibcode:2010JPBio..53...10S. doi:10.1007/s12374-009-9087-x. S2CID   36185464.
  42. 1 2 3 Cowger, Christina; Brown, James K.M. (2019-08-25). "Durability of Quantitative Resistance in Crops: Greater Than We Know?". Annual Review of Phytopathology . 57 (1). Annual Reviews: 253–277. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082718-100016. ISSN   0066-4286. PMID   31206351. S2CID   190533925.
  43. 1 2 3 Park, Robert F.; Golegaonkar, Prashant G.; Derevnina, Lida; Sandhu, Karanjeet S.; Karaoglu, Haydar; Elmansour, Huda M.; Dracatos, Peter M.; Singh, Davinder (2015-08-04). "Leaf Rust of Cultivated Barley: Pathology and Control". Annual Review of Phytopathology . 53 (1). Annual Reviews: 565–589. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080614-120324. ISSN   0066-4286. PMID   26047566.
  44. ↑ Bhavani, Sridhar (2021-06-18). "Adult plant resistance (APR): the strategy to beat persistent pathogens". CIMMYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center). Retrieved 2021-07-06.
  45. ↑ Singh, Ravi P.; Singh, Pawan K.; Rutkoski, Jessica; Hodson, David P.; He, Xinyao; Jørgensen, Lise N.; Hovmøller, Mogens S.; Huerta-Espino, Julio (2016-08-04). "Disease Impact on Wheat Yield Potential and Prospects of Genetic Control". Annual Review of Phytopathology . 54 (1). Annual Reviews: 303–322. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-095835. PMID   27296137. S2CID   4603818.
  46. 1 2 Stuthman, D. D.; Leonard, K. J.; Miller-Garvin, J. (2007). "Breeding crops for durable resistance to disease". Advances in Agronomy. 95: 319–367. doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(07)95004-X. ISBN   9780123741653.
  47. ↑ Shimelis, H.; Laing, M. "Timelines in conventional crop improvement: pre-breeding and breeding procedures". Australian Journal of Crop Science: 1542–1549. eISSN   1835-2707. ISSN   1835-2693. S2CID   55486617.
  48. ↑ Mahlein, A.-K.; Kuska, M.T.; Behmann, J.; Polder, G.; Walter, A. (2018-08-25). "Hyperspectral Sensors and Imaging Technologies in Phytopathology: State of the Art". Annual Review of Phytopathology . 56 (1). Annual Reviews: 535–558. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-080417-050100. ISSN   0066-4286. PMID   30149790. S2CID   52096158.
  49. ↑ Tabashnik, Bruce E.; Brevault, Thierry; Carriere, Yves (2013). "Insect resistance to Bt crops: lessons from the first billion acres". Nature Biotechnology. 31 (6): 510–521. doi:10.1038/nbt.2597. PMID   23752438. S2CID   205278530.
  50. ↑ Kavanagh, T. A.; Spillane, C. (1995-02-01). "Strategies for engineering virus resistance in transgenic plants". Euphytica. 85 (1–3): 149–158. doi:10.1007/BF00023943. ISSN   0014-2336. S2CID   20940279.
  51. ↑ Kaniewski, Wojciech K.; Thomas, Peter E. (2004). "The Potato Story". AgBioForum. 7 (1&2): 41–46.
  52. ↑ Lacombe, Séverine; Rougon-Cardoso, Alejandra; Sherwood, Emma; Peeters, Nemo; Dahlbeck, Douglas; van Esse, H. Peter; Smoker, Matthew; Rallapalli, Ghanasyam; Thomma, Bart P. H. J.; Staskawicz, Brian; Jones, Jonathan D. G.; Zipfel, Cyril (April 17, 2010). "Interfamily transfer of a plant pattern-recognition receptor confers broad-spectrum bacterial resistance". Nature Biotechnology. 28 (4): 365–369. doi:10.1038/nbt.1613. PMID   20231819. S2CID   7260214 – via www.nature.com.
  53. ↑ Karthikeyan, A.; Deivamani, M.; Shobhana, V. G.; Sudha, M.; Anandhan, T. (2013). "RNA interference: Evolutions and applications in plant disease management". Archives of Phytopathology and Plant Protection. 46 (12): 1430–1441. Bibcode:2013ArPPP..46.1430K. doi:10.1080/03235408.2013.769315. S2CID   85060938.
  54. ↑ Erickson, F. L.; Dinesh-Kumar, S. P.; Holzberg, S.; Ustach, C. V.; Dutton, M.; Handley, V.; Corr, C.; Baker, B. J. (1999-03-29). "Interactions between tobacco mosaic virus and the tobacco N gene". Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences. 354 (1383): 653–658. doi:10.1098/rstb.1999.0417. ISSN   0962-8436. PMC   1692539 . PMID   10212945.
  55. ↑ Bettgenhaeuser, Jan; Gilbert, Brian; Ayliffe, Michael; Moscou, Matthew J. (11 December 2014). "Nonhost resistance to rust pathogens – a continuation of continua". Frontiers in Plant Science. 5: 664. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00664 . PMC   4263244 . PMID   25566270.
  56. ↑ Restrepo, Silvia; Tabima, Javier F.; Mideros, Maria F.; Grünwald, Niklaus J.; Matute, Daniel R. (4 August 2014). "Speciation in Fungal and Oomycete Plant Pathogens". Annual Review of Phytopathology. 52 (1). Annual Reviews: 289–316. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-102313-050056 . ISSN   0066-4286. PMID   24906125.
  57. 1 2 3 4 5 McDonald, B. A.; Linde, C. (2002). "Pathogen population genetics, evolutionary potential, and durable resistance". Annual Review of Phytopathology. 40: 349–379. doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120501.101443. PMID   12147764. S2CID   23726106.
  58. ↑ Barnes, Jessica C.; Delborne, Jason A. (September 2022). "The politics of genetic technoscience for conservation: The case of blight-resistant American chestnut". Environment and Planning E: Nature and Space. 5 (3): 1518–1540. Bibcode:2022EnPlE...5.1518B. doi: 10.1177/25148486211024910 .

Further reading

This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.