4.7 Article

Cloning and characterization of chitinases from interior spruce and lodgepole pine

Journal

PHYTOCHEMISTRY
Volume 101, Issue -, Pages 32-39

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.02.006

Keywords

Interior spruce; Lodgepole pine; Picea glauca x engelmannii; Pinus contorta; Pinaceae; Coniferales; Pissodes strobi; White pine weevil; Grossmannia clavigera; Leptographium abietinum; Dendroctonus ponderosae; Mountain pine beetle; Chitinases; Conifer defence; Plant-insect and plant-pathogen interactions

Funding

  1. NSERC
  2. Genome Canada
  3. Genome British Columbia

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Chitinases have been implicated in the defence of conifers against insects and pathogens. cDNA for six chitinases were cloned from interior spruce (Picea glauca x engelmannii) and four from lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta). The cloned interior spruce chitinases were annotated class I PgeChia1-1 and PgeChia1-2, class II PgeChia2-1, class IV PgeChia4-1, and class VII PgeChia7-1 and PgeChia7-2; lodgepole pine chitinases were annotated class I PcChia1-1, class IV PcChia4-1, and class VII PcChia7-1 and PcChia7-2. Chitinases were expressed in Escherichia coli with maltose-binding-protein tags and soluble proteins purified. Functional characterization demonstrated chitinolytic activity for the three class I chitinases PgeChia1-1, PgeChia1-2 and PcChia1-1. Transcript analysis established strong induction of most of the tested chitinases, including all three class I chitinases, in interior spruce and lodgepole pine in response to inoculation with bark beetle associated fungi (Leptographium abietinum and Grosmannia clavigera) and in interior spruce in response to weevil (Pissodes strobi) feeding. Evidence of chitinolytic activity and inducibility by fungal and insect attack support the involvement of these chitinases in conifer defense. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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