Molecular insights into the compatible and incompatible interactions between sugar beet and the beet cyst nematode.
CYSTM domain-containing proteins
Ethylene
Heterodera schachtii
Jasmonate
Sugar beet
Transcriptome
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
22 Oct 2020
22 Oct 2020
Historique:
received:
07
11
2019
accepted:
18
10
2020
entrez:
23
10
2020
pubmed:
24
10
2020
medline:
25
3
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris) is an economically important crop that provides nearly one third of the global sugar production. The beet cyst nematode (BCN), Heterodera schachtii, causes major yield losses in sugar beet and other crops worldwide. The most effective and economic approach to control this nematode is growing tolerant or resistant cultivars. To identify candidate genes involved in susceptibility and resistance, the transcriptome of sugar beet and BCN in compatible and incompatible interactions at two time points was studied using mRNA-seq. In the susceptible cultivar, most defense-related genes were induced at 4 dai while suppressed at 10 dai but in the resistant cultivar Nemakill, induction of genes involved in the plant defense response was observed at both time points. In the compatible interaction, alterations in phytohormone-related genes were detected. The effect of exogenous application of Methyl Jasmonate and ET-generator ethephon on susceptible plants was therefore investigated and the results revealed significant reduction in plant susceptibility. Genes putatively involved in the resistance of Nemakill were identified, such as genes involved in phenylpropanoid pathway and genes encoding CYSTM domain-containing proteins, F-box proteins, chitinase, galactono-1,4-lactone dehydrogenase and CASP-like protein. Also, the transcriptome of the BCN was analyzed in infected root samples and several novel potential nematode effector genes were found. Our data provides detailed insights into the plant and nematode transcriptional changes occurring during compatible and incompatible interactions between sugar beet and BCN. Many important genes playing potential roles in susceptibility or resistance of sugar beet against BCN, as well as some BCN effectors with a potential role as avr proteins were identified. In addition, our findings indicate the effective role of jasmonate and ethylene in enhancing sugar beet defense response against BCN. This research provides new molecular insights into the plant-nematode interactions that can be used to design novel management strategies against BCN.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Sugar beet (Beta vulgaris subsp. vulgaris) is an economically important crop that provides nearly one third of the global sugar production. The beet cyst nematode (BCN), Heterodera schachtii, causes major yield losses in sugar beet and other crops worldwide. The most effective and economic approach to control this nematode is growing tolerant or resistant cultivars. To identify candidate genes involved in susceptibility and resistance, the transcriptome of sugar beet and BCN in compatible and incompatible interactions at two time points was studied using mRNA-seq.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In the susceptible cultivar, most defense-related genes were induced at 4 dai while suppressed at 10 dai but in the resistant cultivar Nemakill, induction of genes involved in the plant defense response was observed at both time points. In the compatible interaction, alterations in phytohormone-related genes were detected. The effect of exogenous application of Methyl Jasmonate and ET-generator ethephon on susceptible plants was therefore investigated and the results revealed significant reduction in plant susceptibility. Genes putatively involved in the resistance of Nemakill were identified, such as genes involved in phenylpropanoid pathway and genes encoding CYSTM domain-containing proteins, F-box proteins, chitinase, galactono-1,4-lactone dehydrogenase and CASP-like protein. Also, the transcriptome of the BCN was analyzed in infected root samples and several novel potential nematode effector genes were found.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Our data provides detailed insights into the plant and nematode transcriptional changes occurring during compatible and incompatible interactions between sugar beet and BCN. Many important genes playing potential roles in susceptibility or resistance of sugar beet against BCN, as well as some BCN effectors with a potential role as avr proteins were identified. In addition, our findings indicate the effective role of jasmonate and ethylene in enhancing sugar beet defense response against BCN. This research provides new molecular insights into the plant-nematode interactions that can be used to design novel management strategies against BCN.
Identifiants
pubmed: 33092522
doi: 10.1186/s12870-020-02706-8
pii: 10.1186/s12870-020-02706-8
pmc: PMC7583174
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
483Références
Nature. 2007 Aug 9;448(7154):661-5
pubmed: 17637677
Plant Physiol. 2009 Jun;150(2):942-50
pubmed: 19395407
Nucleic Acids Res. 2015 Jan;43(Database issue):D974-81
pubmed: 25324309
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2003 May;16(5):439-46
pubmed: 12744515
PLoS One. 2016 Jan 29;11(1):e0147511
pubmed: 26824923
Bioinformatics. 2010 Jan 15;26(2):149-52
pubmed: 19933165
Plant Physiol. 2007 Jul;144(3):1370-82
pubmed: 17496113
Nucleic Acids Res. 2002 May 1;30(9):e36
pubmed: 11972351
PLoS Comput Biol. 2013;9(8):e1003118
pubmed: 23950696
Plant Cell. 2007 Feb;19(2):509-23
pubmed: 17307926
Bioinformatics. 2008 Jun 15;24(12):1461-2
pubmed: 18441000
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2001 Oct;14(10):1206-12
pubmed: 11605960
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013 Jan;26(1):75-86
pubmed: 22712507
Plant Physiol. 2011 Sep;157(1):305-16
pubmed: 21715672
New Phytol. 2012 Nov;196(3):901-13
pubmed: 22985247
New Phytol. 2012 Nov;196(3):887-900
pubmed: 22985291
J Chem Ecol. 2005 Sep;31(9):1953-67
pubmed: 16132206
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2015 May;28(5):519-33
pubmed: 25608179
Sci Rep. 2015 Sep 24;5:14299
pubmed: 26399665
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2000 Mar;13(3):309-15
pubmed: 10707356
PLoS One. 2015 Oct 21;10(10):e0140937
pubmed: 26488731
J Nematol. 1981 Apr;13(2):206-12
pubmed: 19300746
PLoS One. 2014 Jan 27;9(1):e87216
pubmed: 24475254
Biochem J. 1954 Jan;56(1):21-8
pubmed: 13126087
Bioinformatics. 2014 Aug 1;30(15):2114-20
pubmed: 24695404
Genome Biol. 2014;15(12):550
pubmed: 25516281
Plant Physiol. 2014 Jan;164(1):424-39
pubmed: 24198318
J Nematol. 1983 Oct;15(4):539-44
pubmed: 19295844
Nat Biotechnol. 2008 Aug;26(8):909-15
pubmed: 18660804
Gene. 2007 May 1;392(1-2):106-16
pubmed: 17240087
New Phytol. 2015 Aug;207(3):778-89
pubmed: 25825039
Nature. 1998 May 28;393(6683):365-9
pubmed: 9620799
Plant Sci. 2012 Apr;185-186:208-17
pubmed: 22325883
PLoS One. 2015 Jan 21;10(1):e0115042
pubmed: 25606855
Plant J. 2019 Oct;100(2):221-236
pubmed: 31322300
BMC Plant Biol. 2015 Feb 13;15:53
pubmed: 25849639
Nat Protoc. 2008;3(6):1101-8
pubmed: 18546601
Plant Sci. 2017 Jun;259:71-85
pubmed: 28483055
Plant Sci. 2014 Jan;214:14-9
pubmed: 24268159
PLoS One. 2015 Nov 16;10(11):e0143261
pubmed: 26571375
Nature. 2014 Jan 23;505(7484):546-9
pubmed: 24352233
BMC Plant Biol. 2013 Mar 19;13:47
pubmed: 23510309
Plant J. 2003 Jun;34(6):753-67
pubmed: 12795696
Genome Res. 2008 May;18(5):821-9
pubmed: 18349386
Plant J. 2003 Mar;33(5):911-21
pubmed: 12609032
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013 Jan;26(1):36-43
pubmed: 23075039
Plant Mol Biol. 2004 Jan;54(1):147-56
pubmed: 15159641
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2000 Oct;13(10):1121-9
pubmed: 11043473
Plant Cell. 2004 Jun;16(6):1392-405
pubmed: 15155881
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Jul 8;100(14):8571-6
pubmed: 12826617
Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2017 Mar 25;485(1):174-180
pubmed: 28189687
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013 Jan;26(1):97-105
pubmed: 22857385
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2008 Apr;21(4):424-32
pubmed: 18321188
Plant J. 2010 Feb;61(4):698-712
pubmed: 20003167
Nature. 2005 May 26;435(7041):446-51
pubmed: 15917798
J Nematol. 1985 Apr;17(2):145-9
pubmed: 19294073
Physiol Plant. 2008 Nov;134(3):440-52
pubmed: 18573188
Bioinformatics. 2013 Jan 1;29(1):15-21
pubmed: 23104886
Plant J. 2009 Mar;57(5):771-84
pubmed: 18980640
Plant Cell. 2010 Mar;22(3):606-22
pubmed: 20354196
EMBO J. 2019 May 15;38(10):
pubmed: 31061171
Plant Physiol. 2014 Oct;166(2):551-9
pubmed: 25125504
Sci Rep. 2017 Jan 23;7:41282
pubmed: 28112257
Arabidopsis Book. 2011;9:e0152
pubmed: 22303276
Nature. 2011 May 19;473(7347):380-3
pubmed: 21593871
J Exp Bot. 2011 Nov;62(15):5547-60
pubmed: 21831845
Phytopathology. 2004 Nov;94(11):1207-14
pubmed: 18944456
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2006 May;19(5):521-9
pubmed: 16673939
Nature. 2016 Aug 25;536(7617):469-73
pubmed: 27479325
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2011 May 24;108(21):8897-902
pubmed: 21555559
Nature. 2004 Jan 1;427(6969):30
pubmed: 14702076
Science. 1997 Feb 7;275(5301):832-4
pubmed: 9012350
Nature. 2003 Nov 20;426(6964):302-6
pubmed: 14628054
BMC Plant Biol. 2016 Oct 4;16(1):213
pubmed: 27716048
Planta. 2013 Nov;238(5):807-18
pubmed: 23824525
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2007 Mar;20(3):293-305
pubmed: 17378432
Plant J. 1999 Nov;20(4):433-45
pubmed: 10607296