4.7 Review

Contribution of Proteomics to the Study of Plant Pathogenic Fungi

Journal

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
Volume 11, Issue 1, Pages 3-16

Publisher

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/pr200873p

Keywords

plant pathogenic fungi; fungal proteomics; fungal secretome; Botrytis cinerea; Sclerotinia sclerotiorum; Fusarium graminearum

Funding

  1. Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (BotBank) [EUI2008-03686]
  2. Andalucian Government Junta de Andalucia
  3. University of Cordoba (Agroforestry and Plant Biochemistry and Proteomics Research Group) [AGR-0164]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Phytopathogenic fungi are one of the most damaging plant parasitic organisms, and can cause serious diseases and important yield losses in crops. The study of the biology of these microorganisms and the interaction with their hosts has experienced great advances in recent years due to the development of moderm, holistic and high-throughput -omic techniques, together with the increasing number of genome sequencing projects and the development of mutants and reverse genetics tools. We highlight among these -omic techniques the importance of proteomics, which has become a relevant tool in plant-fungus pathosystem research. Proteomics intends to identify gene products with a key role in pathogenicity and virulence. These studies would help in the search of key protein targets and in the development of agrochemicals, which may open new ways for crop disease diagnosis and protection. In this review, we made an overview on the contribution of proteomics to the knowledge of life cycle, infection mechanisms, and virulence of the plant pathogenic fungi. Data from current, innovative literature, according to both methodological and experimental systems, were summarized and discussed. Specific sections were devoted to the most studied fungal phytopathogens: Botrytis cinerea, Sclerotinia sclerotiorum, and Fusarium graminearum.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available