| Literature DB >> 35161274 |
Feiying Zhu1,2, Zhiwei Wang3, Wenjun Su4, Jianhua Tong1, Yong Fang2, Zhengliang Luo2, Fan Yuan1, Jing Xiang1, Xi Chen2, Ruozhong Wang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Fusarium wilt disease is leading threat to watermelon yield and quality. Different cultivation cropping systems have been reported as safe and efficient methods to control watermelon Fusarium wilt. However, the role of salicylic acid (SA) in watermelon resistance to Fusarium wilt in these different cultivation systems remains unknown.Entities:
Keywords: Fusarium wilt; resistance; salicylic acid; watermelon
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161274 PMCID: PMC8839013 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030293
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1The effect of salicylic acid on watermelon resistance to Fusarium wilt in the pot experiment: (A) The phenotypes of watermelon seedling after SA application at different concentrations; (B) comparison of disease incidence after different concentrations of exogenous SA were applied; (C) comparison of SA content in watermelon treated with FON. S: control (Zaojia 8424, sensitive cultivar); SF: Zaojia 8424, sensitive cultivar + FON. Note: 0 dpi (before treatment); 12 hpi (12 h postinoculation); 1 dpi (1 day postinoculation); 3 dpi (3 days postinoculation); 5 dpi (5 days postinoculation); 7 dpi (7 days postinoculation). Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Multiple t tests of two-way ANOVA (* p ≤ 0.0001).
Figure 2Comparison of watermelon growth and disease incidence under different growth conditions in the field experiment. (A) Comparison of watermelon plants’ morphology under monocropping and rotated cropping systems; (B) the phenotypes of watermelon seedlings under different systems; (C) the disease incidence under different growth systems; (D) FON biomass in two cropping systems. C: continuous watermelon monocropping; R: oilseed rape rotation cropping. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Student’s t-test (* p ≤ 0.05).
Figure 3Comparison of watermelon physiological and biochemical indexes. (A) Comparison of fresh root weights in different samples; (B) comparison of root number in different samples; (C) comparison of SA contents in different samples; (D) comparison of PAL enzyme activity in different samples; (E) comparison of POD enzyme activity in different samples; (F) comparison of MDA content in different samples. C: continuous watermelon monocropping; R: rotated with oilseed rape cropping; POD: peroxidase; PAL: phenylalanine ammonia-lyase; MDA: malondialdehyde. Three biological replicates per samples were analyzed. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Student’s t-test (** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; **** p ≤ 0.0001).
Figure 4Transcriptome comparison analysis of watermelon gene expression under different cropping systems: (A) volcano map with different expressions; (B) Venn diagram of watermelon genes expression under different cropping systems; (C) box plot of gene expression distribution; (D) GO annotations analysis; (E) COG classification; (F) comparison analysis of major KEGG pathway enrichment. C: continuous watermelon monocropping; R: oilseed rape rotation cropping. Three biological replicates per samples were analyzed.
Figure 5Differential expression genes in watermelon roots under different cropping systems: (A) comparison analysis of the expression of 26 genes under different cropping systems; (B) comparison analysis of the relative expression of 20 candidate genes in SA biosynthesis. The relative color scheme uses selected values in each row to convert values to colors. C: continuous watermelon monocropping; R: oilseed rape rotation cropping. Three biological replicates per samples were analyzed.
Figure 6Comparison analysis of relative expressions of 20 candidate genes in different samples using RT-qPCR. C: continuous watermelon monocropping; R: oilseed rape rotation cropping. Three biological replicates per samples were analyzed. Data are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3). Student’s t-test (* p ≤ 0.05; ** p ≤ 0.01; *** p ≤ 0.001; **** p ≤ 0.0001).
Figure 7Phylogenic tree of the homologue’s proteins from three candidate genes.
Prediction of cis-acting regulatory element of six DEGs.
| Gene ID | Gene Name | Cis-Acting | Function | Sequence | Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cla002899 |
| ABRE | ABA | ACGTG | 1 |
| Cla019154 |
| CGTCA-motif | MeJA | CGTCA | 2 |
| TCA-element | SA | CCATCTTTTT, | 5 | ||
| Cla022362 |
| ABRE | ABA | AACCCGG | 1 |
| CGTCA-motif | MeJA | CGTCA | 1 | ||
| Cla002084 |
| CGTCA-motif | MeJA | CGTCA | 1 |
| Cla005515 |
| ABRE | ABA | CACGTG, ACGTG | 5 |
| CGTCA-motif | MeJA | CGTCA | 2 | ||
| TCA-element | SA | CCATCTTTTT | 1 | ||
| Cla010867 |
| ABRE | ABA | ACGTG | 2 |
| CGTCA-motif | MeJA | CGTCA | 3 |