Antioxidant reactions in winter wheat seedlings of different cultivars exposed to the Pseudomonas syringae and its lipopolysaccharides in vitro

A. Pastoschuk, M. Kovalenko, L. Skivka
Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv; Taras Shevchenko National University of Kyiv, Kyiv

Abstract


Pseudomonas syringae is the most common phytopathogenic bacterium with a wide range of target plants, which include important cereals such as wheat. One of the main pathogens of bacterial diseases of wheat is Pseudomonas syringae pv. atrofaciens. In some countries, wheat yield losses caused by this phytopathogenic bacterium reach 50%. Currently, the taxonomy of P. syringae includes more than 50 pathovars with varying degrees of adaptation to wheat lesions. One of them is Pseudomonas syringae pv. сoronafaciens. P. syringae pv. Coronafaciens is non-host pathogen for wheat. However, the infectionsof a wide range of crops, including wheat, with this pathogen attracts the attention of both researchers and specialiss of the agro-industrial complex. The study of the mechanisms of wheat resistance to host and non-host pathovars of P. syringae is of great interest, both in terms of in-depth study of the pathogen and in the perspective of selection of bacterial disease-resistant varieties of this strategically important grain crop for Ukraine. The aim of the study was to compare the antioxidant reactions of wheat seedlings of different winter wheat varieties under the grain exposition to P. syringae of different pathovars and their lipopolysaccharides (LPS). It was found that reactive oxygen species generation, as a mechanism of plant immune protection against phytopathogenic pseudomonads, is equally activated in the case of exposure to both host and nonhost pathovars and to a lesser extent in the case of the exposure with LPS of both pathovars. In grains of Favoritka variety (most sensitive to phytopathogenic pseudomonads) exposed to host pathovar, significant activation of antioxidant enzymes was observed. Exposure to the non-host pathovar causes sharp proline accumulation. Thus, the sensitivity of wheat seedlings to phytopathogenic host and non-host pathovars of
phytopathogenic pseudomonads largely depends on the balanced functioning of the antioxidant defense system. Taken together, these data indicate the wheat cell oxidative metabolism as a target for selection of varieties resistant to phytopathogenic bacteria.

Keywords


Pseudomonas syringae, wheat, antioxidant system

Full Text:

PDF>PDF

References


Gvozdyak R.I., Pasichnyk L.A., Yakovleva L. M. Et al. Phytopathogenic bacteria. Bacterial diseases of plants: Monograph. – K: "RPE Interservis" Ltd. – 2011. 58 р. In Ukrainian.

Xin, X. F., Kvitko, B., &He, S. Y. Pseudomonas syringae: whatittake stobe a pathogen. Nature Reviews Microbiology. 2018; 16(5): 316.

Pasichnik L.A., Patyka V.F., Khodos S.F., Vinnichuk T.S. Basalbacteriosis of wheat and influence of agrotechnical methods on its spread. Mikrobiol. Zhur. 2012; 74(4: 37-44.

Valencia-Botı'n A.J., Cisneros-Lo'pez N.E.Are view of the studies and interactions of Pseudomonas syringae pathovars on wheat. Int.J.Agron. 2012; 2012:692350.

Dutta B., Gitaitis R., Agarwal G., Coutinho T., Langston D. Pseudomonas coronafaciens sp. nov., a new phyto bacterial species diverse from Pseudomonas syringae. PloSone. 2018;13(12):e0208271.

Pai Li, Yi-Ju Lu, Huan Chen & Brad Day The Life cycle of the Plant Immune System. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences., 2020; 39:1:72-100.

Saijo Y, Loo P. Plant immunity in signal integration between biotic and abiotic stress responses. New Phytol. 2020;225(1):87-104.

Delventhal R., Rajaraman J., Stefanato L., Rehman S., Aghnoum R., McGrannG., Bolger M., Usadel B., Hedley P., Boyd L., Niks R., Schweizer P., Schaffrath U. Acomparative analysis of non host resistance across the two Triticeae crop species wheat and barley. BMC Plant Biol. 2017;17(1):232.

Li W., Deng Y., Ning Y., He Z., Wang G.L. Exploiting BroadSpectrum Disease Resistance in Crops: From Molecular Dissection to Breeding. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2020;71:575-603.

Yu X., Feng B., He P., Shan L. From chaos to harmony: Responses and signaling upon microbial pattern recognition. Annu. Rev.Phytopathol.

; 55:109–137.

O'Neill E.M., Mucyn T.S., Patteson J.B., Finkel O.M., Chung E.H., Baccile J.A., Massolo E., Schroeder F.C., Dangl J.L., Li B. Phevamine A, a small molecule that suppresses plant immune responses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(41):E9514-E9522.

Li L., Harmon A., Chen S. Plant immune responses – from guard cells and local responses to systemic defense against bacterial pathogens. Plant Signal Behav. 2019;14(5):e1588667.

Pastoshchuk A.Yu., Skivka L.M., Butsenko L.M., Patyka V.P. Effect of causal agent of basal bacteriosis on seed germination and rood growth of different wheat varieties. Microbiology&Biotechnology. 2018. 2(42):39-48.

Zdorovenko G., Zdorovenko E. Pseudomonas syringae lipopolysaccharides: Immuno chemical characteristics and structureas a basis for strain classification. Microbiology. 2010. 79: 47–57.

Kumar G., Knowles N. Changes in lipid peroxidation and lipolytic and free-radicals cavenging enzyme activities during aging and sprouting of potato (Solanumtuberosum) seed-tubers. Plant Physiol. 1993; 102:115–24.

Giannopolitis C.N., Ries S.K. Superoxide dismutase I. Occurrence inhigher plants. Plant Physiol. 1977; 59:309–14.

Aeby H. Catalase invitro. Methods Enzymol 1984;105:121–6.

Bradford M.M. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem. 1976;72:248-54.

Bates L.S., Waldren R.P. &Teare I.D. Rapid determination of free proline for water-stress studies. Plant Soil. 1973; 39: 205–207.

Abdul Malik N.A., Kumar I.S., Nadarajah K. Elicitor and Receptor Molecules: Orchestrators of Plant Defense and Immunity. Int J Mol Sci. 2020;21(3):963.

Lindeberg M., Cunnac S., Collmer A. Pseudomonas syringae type III effector repertoires: last words in endless sarguments. Trends Microbiol.

;20(4):199-208.

Hulin M., Mansfield J.W., Brain P., Xu X., Jackson R.W., Harrison R. Characterization of the pathogenicity of strains of Pseudomonas syringae

towards cherry and plum. Plant Pathol. 2018;67(5):1177-1193.

Baranenko V. [Superoxidedismutase in plant cells]. Tsitologiia. 2006;48(6):465-74.

Nowogórska A., Patykowski J. Selected reactive oxygen species and antioxidant enzymes in common bean after Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola and Botrytis cinerea infection. ActaPhysiol Plant. 2015; 37, 1725.

Kavi Kishor P., Hima Kumari P., Sunita M., Sreenivasulu N. Role of praline in cell wall synthesis and plant development and its implications in plantontogeny. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:544.

Meena M., Divyanshu K., Kumar S., Swapnil P., Zehra A., Shukla V., Yadav M., Upadhyay R. Regulation of L-proline biosynthesis, signal transduction, transport, accumulation and its vital role in plants during variable environmental conditions. Heliyon. 2019;5(12):e02952.

Zeier J. New insights into the regulation of plant immunity by amino acid metabolic pathways. Plant Cell Environ. 2013;36(12):2085-103.

Fabro G., Kovács I., Pavet V., Szabados L., Alvarez M. Proline accumulation and AtP5CS2 gene activation are induced by plant-pathogen incompatible interactions in Arabidopsis. Molecular Plant-microbe Interactions : MPMI. 2004;17(4):343-350.

Deuschle K., Funck D., Forlani G., Stransky H., Biehl A., Leister D., van der Graaff E., Kunze R., Frommer W.B. The role of [Delta]1-pyrroline-5-carboxylate dehydrogenase in proline degradation. Plant Cell. 2004;16(12):3413-25.

Received: 06.01.2021

Revised: 03.02.2021

Signed for the press: 03.02.2021




DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.17721/1728_2748.2021.84.61-66

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Лицензия Creative Commons
This journal is available according to the Creative Commons License «Attribution» («Атрибуція») 4.0 Global (CC-BY).