4.7 Article

Quantitative Proteomic Analysis Provides Insights into Rice Defense Mechanisms against Magnaporthe oryzae

Journal

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms19071950

Keywords

innate immunity; basal defense; rice blast; Magnaporthe oryzae; proteomics; iTRAQ

Funding

  1. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [KYT201805, KYTZ201403]
  2. Innovation Team Program for Jiangsu Universities
  3. Top-notch Academic Programs Project of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions [PPZY2015B157]
  4. National Training Program for Student Innovative Research and Training [201710307021]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Blast disease is one of the major rice diseases, and causes nearly 30% annual yield loss worldwide. Resistance genes that have been cloned, however, are effective only against specific strains. In cultivation practice, broad-spectrum resistance to various strains is highly valuable, and requires researchers to investigate the basal defense responses that are effective for diverse types of pathogens. In this study, we took a quantitative proteomic approach and identified 634 rice proteins responsive to infections by both Magnaporthe oryzae strains Guy11 and JS153. These two strains have distinct pathogenesis mechanisms. Therefore, the common responding proteins represent conserved basal defense to a broad spectrum of blast pathogens. Gene ontology analysis indicates that the responding to stimulus biological process is explicitly enriched, among which the proteins responding to oxidative stress and biotic stress are the most prominent. These analyses led to the discoveries of OsPRX59 and OsPRX62 that are robust callose inducers, and OsHSP81 that is capable of inducing both ROS production and callose deposition. The identified rice proteins and biological processes may represent a conserved rice innate immune machinery that is of great value for breeding broad-spectrum resistant rice in the future.

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