4.5 Review

Lipo-chitooligosaccharide Signaling in Endosymbiotic Plant-Microbe Interactions

期刊

MOLECULAR PLANT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS
卷 24, 期 8, 页码 867-878

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-01-11-0019

关键词

-

资金

  1. Agence Nationale de la Recherche
  2. European Community

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) and the rhizobia-legume (RL) root endosymbioses are established as a result of signal exchange in which there is mutual recognition of diffusible signals produced by plant and microbial partners. It was discovered 20 years ago that the key symbiotic signals produced by rhizobial bacteria are lipo-chitooligosaccharides (LCO), called Nod factors. These LCO are perceived via lysin-motif (LysM) receptors and activate a signaling pathway called the common symbiotic pathway (CSP), which controls both the RI, and the AM symbioses. Recent work has established that an AM fungus. Glomus intraradices, also produces LCO that activate the CSP, leading to induction of gene expression and root branching in Medicago truncatula. These Myc-LCO also stimulate mycorrhization in diverse plants. In addition, work on the nonlegume Parasponia andersonii has shown that a LysM receptor is required for both successful mycorrhization and nodulation. Together these studies show that structurally related signals and the LysM receptor family are key components of both nodulation and mycorrhization. LysM receptors are also involved in the perception of chitooligosaccharides (CO), which are derived from fungal cell walls and elicit defense responses and resistance to pathogens in diverse plants. The discovery of Myc-LCO and a LysM receptor required for the AM symbiosis, therefore, not only raises questions of how legume plants discriminate fungal and bacterial endosymbionts but also, more generally, of how plants discriminate endosymbionts from pathogenic microorganisms using structurally related LCO and CO signals and of how these perception mechanisms have evolved.

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