| Literature DB >> 25061981 |
Liana Dalcantara Ongouya Mouekouba1, Lili Zhang2, Xin Guan2, Xiuling Chen2, Hongyu Chen3, Jian Zhang4, Junfeng Zhang3, Jingfu Li2, Yijun Yang5, Aoxue Wang6.
Abstract
Tomato gray mold disease, caused by Botrytis cinerea, is a serious disease in tomato. Clonostachys rosea is an antagonistic microorganism to B. cinerea. To investigate the induced resistance mechanism of C. rosea, we examined the effects of these microorganisms on tomato leaves, along with changes in the activities of three defense enzymes (PAL, PPO, GST), second messengers (NO, H2O2, O2(-)) and phytohormones (IAA, ABA, GA3, ZT, MeJA, SA and C2H4). Compared to the control, all treatments induced higher levels of PAL, PPO and GST activity in tomato leaves and increased NO, SA and GA3 levels. The expression of WRKY and MAPK, two important transcription factors in plant disease resistance, was upregulated in C. rosea- and C. rosea plus B. cinerea-treated samples. Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analysis showed that two abundant proteins were present in the C. rosea plus B. cinerea-treated samples but not in the other samples. These proteins were determined (by mass spectrum analysis) to be LEXYL2 (β-xylosidase) and ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit. Therefore, C. rosea plus B. cinerea treatment induces gray mold resistance in tomato. This study provides a basis for elucidating the mechanism of C. rosea as a biocontrol agent.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 25061981 PMCID: PMC4111289 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0102690
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Figure 1Changes in the activities of resistance-related enzymes in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Open bars indicates water control (Control), left-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants treated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL), horizontal bars indicates plants treated with C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone, right-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants inoculated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) before the application of C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL). Each experiment was repeated three times. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. Means marked with different letters (a, b, c) are significantly different at P<0.05. A: Changes in PAL activity in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. B: Changes in PPO activity in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. C: Changes in GST activity in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. D: Prevention effects of C. rosea to B. cinerea at 60 h after treatment.
Figure 2Changes in second messenger levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Open bars indicates water control, left-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants treated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL), horizontal bars indicates plants treated with C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone, right-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants inoculated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) before the application of C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL). Each experiment was repeated three times. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. Means marked with different letters (a, b, c) are significantly different at P<0.05. A: Changes in NO levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. B: Changes in H2O2 levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. C: Changes of O2 − levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Figure 3Changes in phytohormone levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Open bars indicates water control, left-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants treated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL), horizontal bars indicates plants treated with C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone, right-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants inoculated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) before the application of C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL). Each experiment was repeated three times. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. Means marked with different letters (a, b, c) are significantly different at P<0.05. A: Changes in IAA levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. B: Changes in ABA levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. C: Changes in GA3 levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. D: Changes in ZT levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. E: Changes in MeJA levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. F: Changes in SA levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments. G: Changes in C2H4 levels in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Figure 4MAPK gene expression in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Note: The time points (1–9) after treatment were 0 h, 24 h, 36h, 48 h, 56 h, 60 h, 72 h and 84 h, respectively. The experiments were repeated three times, 0 h stand for the control. A: The relative expression level of the MAPK gene in B. cinerea treatment. B: The relative expression level of the MAPK gene in C. rosea treatment. C: The relative expression level of the MAPK gene in B. cinerea plus C. rosea treatment.
Figure 5WRKY gene expression in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Note: The time points (1–9) after treatment were 0 h, 24 h, 36 h, 48 h, 56 h, 60 h, 72 h and 84 h, respectively. The experiments were repeated three times, 0 h stand for the control. A: The relative expression level of the WRKY gene in B. cinerea treatment. B: The relative expression level of the WRKY gene in C. rosea treatment. C: The relative expression level of the WRKY gene in B. cinerea plus C. rosea treatment.
Figure 6Two-dimensional gel electrophoresis analysis of proteins in leaves subjected to different treatments.
A: Plants treated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone. B: Plants treated with C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone. C: Plants inoculated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) before the application of C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL). D: Water control.
Identification of the main differentially regulated protein spots among three treatments compared to the control.
| Spot No. | Protein Name | Accession No. | Species | Score | Matched Peptides | Coverage |
| ATP binding/unfolded protein binding | ||||||
| 1 | Chaperone DnaK | ABE79560 |
| 270 | 12 | 13% |
| Identical protein binding/serine-type endopeptidase activity | ||||||
| 3 | subtilisin-like protease | CAA71234 |
| 741 | 41 | 56% |
| Oxidoreductase/peroxidase | ||||||
| 4 | Suberization-associated anionic peroxidase 1 | P15003 |
| 319 | 6 | 14% |
| ATP binding | ||||||
| 5 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 775 | 16 | 37% |
| 6 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 2098 | 71 | 58% |
| 7 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 945 | 24 | 43% |
| 8 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 487 | 9 | 19% |
| 9 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 688 | 21 | 34% |
| 10 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplast precursor | O49074 |
| 198 | 6 | 9% |
| 44 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase activase, chloroplastic | O49074 |
| 628 | 14 | 23% |
| Catalytic activity/coenzyme binding | ||||||
| 11 | mRNA binding protein precursor | AAD21574 |
| 524 | 12 | 31% |
| L-malate dehydrogenase activity/binding | ||||||
| 12 | mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase | AAU29198 |
| 1253 | 27 | 70% |
| 13 | mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase | AAU29198 |
| 236 | 6 | 17% |
| 14 | mitochondrial malate dehydrogenase | AAU29198 |
| 120 | 2 | 8% |
| Phosphatase activity | ||||||
| 15 | Unknown/Putative uncharacterized protein | ABK95024 |
| 191 | 5 | 10% |
| Nucleic acid binding/nucleotide binding | ||||||
| 16 | single-stranded DNA binding protein precursor | AAL39067 |
| 365 | 9 | 25% |
| RNA binding/nucleotide binding | ||||||
| 17 | 30 kDa ribonucleoprotein, chloroplastic | P49313 |
| 91 | 1 | 4% |
| Transferase activity | ||||||
| 18 | glutathione S-transferase, class-phi | AAB65163 |
| 221 | 14 | 18% |
| 23 | glutathione S-transferase, class-phi | AAB65163 |
| 221 | 14 | 18% |
| Unreviewed | ||||||
| 19 | nascent polypeptide associated complex alpha | ACB32231 |
| 281 | 7 | 44% |
| Carbonate dehydratase activity | ||||||
| 20 | carbonic anhydrase | CAH60891 |
| 198 | 5 | 12% |
| Threonine-type endopeptidase activity | ||||||
| 21 | unknown | ABA81880 |
| 448 | 13 | 49% |
| 35 | Proteasome subunit beta type-1 | O82531 |
| 641 | 20 | 44% |
| 42 | Proteasome subunit beta type-1 | O82531 |
| 641 | 20 | 44% |
| Triose-phosphate isomerase activity | ||||||
| 22 | triose phosphate isomerase cytosolic isoform-like | ABB02628 |
| 104 | 2 | 13% |
| Hydrogen ion transporting ATP synthase activity,rotational mechanism | ||||||
| 24 | ATP synthase delta chain, chloroplastic | P32980 |
| 133 | 4 | 14% |
| Calcium ion binding | ||||||
| 25 | Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2, chloroplastic | P29795 |
| 569 | 22 | 46% |
| 26 | Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2, chloroplastic | P29795 |
| 690 | 35 | 46% |
| 27 | Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2, chloroplastic | P29795 |
| 499 | 16 | 44% |
| 30 | Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2, chloroplastic | P93566 |
| 171 | 3 | 18% |
| 43 | Oxygen-evolving enhancer protein 2, chloroplastic | P29795 |
| 677 | 16 | 44% |
| Structural constituent of ribosome | ||||||
| 28 | ribosomal protein L12-1a | CAA44226 |
| 410 | 7 | 38% |
| Hypothetical protein | ||||||
| 29 | Hypothetical protein | AAG12570 |
| 237 | 5 | 15% |
| Defense response/response to biotic stimulus | ||||||
| 31 | TSI-1 protein | CAA75803 |
| 229 | 8 | 52% |
| 32 | TSI-1 protein | CAA75803 |
| 155 | 6 | 25% |
| Magnesium ion binding/monooxygenase activity/ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase activity | ||||||
| 33 | ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase/oxygenase large subunit | YP_514860 |
| 260 | 6 | 10% |
| Nucleic acid binding/nucleotide binding | ||||||
| 34 | SGRP-1 | CAA73034 |
| 138 | 2 | 16% |
| Monooxygenase activity/ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase activity | ||||||
| 36 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase small chain 3A/3C, chloroplastic | P07180 |
| 428 | 16 | 62% |
| Hydrolase activity,hydrolyzing O-glycosyl compounds | ||||||
| 37 | LEXYL2 | BAC98299 |
| 418 | 9 | 18% |
| NAD or NADH binding/glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase activity | ||||||
| 38 | glyceraldehyde-3-phosphate dehydrogenase | CBE70550 |
| 113 | 2 | 27% |
| Fructose-bisphosphate aldolase activity | ||||||
| 39 | fructose-bisphosphate aldolase, putative | XP_002531508 |
| 710 | 22 | 27% |
| FAD binding/NADP or NADPH binding/ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase activity/poly(U) RNA binding | ||||||
| 40 | Contains similarity to ferredoxin-NADP+ reductase from Arabidopsis thaliana gb|AJ243705 and contains an oxidoreductase FAD/NAD-binding PF|00175 domain. | AAF79911 |
| 159 | 5 | 9% |
| ATP binding/hydrogen ion transporting ATP synthase activity, rotational mechanism/proton-transporting ATPase activity, rotational mechanism | ||||||
| 41 | ATP synthase CF1 alpha subunit | NP_051044 |
| 312 | 12 | 18% |
| 45 | ATP synthase CF1 epsilon chain | ABB90047 |
| 582 | 19 | 56% |
| Pathogenesis-related protein | ||||||
| 46 | Pathogenesis-related protein STH-2 | P17642 |
| 271 | ||
| magnesium ion binding/monooxygenase activity/ribulose-bisphosphate carboxylase activity | ||||||
| 47 | ribulosebisphosphate carboxylase | AAB01597 |
| 92 | 3 | 7% |
| 48 | Ribulose bisphosphate carboxylase large chain | P28427 |
| 84 | 2 | 10% |
| response to stress | ||||||
| 49 | Osmotin-like protein OSML15 | P50703 |
| 375 | 5 | 40% |
| Antimicrobial/Fungicide/Pathogenesis-related protein | ||||||
| 50 | pathogenesis-related protein PR P23 | CAA50059 |
| 276 | 4 | 36% |
Figure 7Expression of ATP and LEXYL2 genes in tomato leaves subjected to different treatments.
Left-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants treated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL), horizontal bars indicates plants treated with C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL) alone, right-diagonal hatched bars indicates plants inoculated with B. cinerea (107 cfu spores/mL) before the application of C. rosea (107 cfu spores/mL). Each experiment was repeated three times. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. Means marked with different letters (a, b, c) are significantly different at P<0.05. A: Expression of ATP genes in tomato leaves. B: Expression of LEXYL2 genes in tomato leaves.