4.5 Article

Visualization of Wound Periderm and Hyphal Profiles in Pine Stems Inoculated With the Pitch Canker Fungus Fusarium circinatum

期刊

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
卷 72, 期 12, 页码 965-973

出版社

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.20744

关键词

Fusarium circinatum; Gibberella circinata; lignin; pitch canker; wound periderm

资金

  1. Korea Forest Service (Forest Science and Technology Projects) [S210608L0101704C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Postpenetration behavior of Fusarium circinatum in stems of pine species was investigated with light and transmission electron microscopy. Two-year-old stems of Pinus rigida and P. densiflora were wound-inoculated with the fungal conidial suspension and subjected to 25 degrees C for up to 30 days. It was common to observe the formation of wound periderm on each pine species, recovering wounded sites with newly formed tissues. The outermost thick layer of wound periderm was pink to red colored with the phloroglucinol-EtOH staining, indicating heavy deposition of lignin in wound periderm. The cork layers in the wound periderm of the two pine species consisted of cells that were mostly devoid of cellular contents in cytoplasm. The cork cells showed convoluted cell walls with different electron density (lamellations), which was seemingly more prevalent in P. densiflora than R rigida. Hyphae of F circinatum appeared normal with typical eucaryotic cytoplasm in R rigida on ultrathin sections. Meanwhile, hyphae in R densiflora were found to possess highly vacuolated cytoplasm, implying hyphal weakening and disintegration. Hyphal cytoplasm appeared to be a thin layer between the vacuole and the plasma membrane surrounded by cell wall. In addition, intrahyphal hyphae and concentric bodies were observed in hyphal cytoplasm. These results suggest that the architecture of wound periderm may be responsible for different responses of pine species to the invasion of F circinatum. Microsc. Res. Tech. 72:965-973, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss. Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据