4.6 Article

Verticillium Suppression Is Associated with the Glucosinolate Composition of Arabidopsis thaliana Leaves

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 8, 期 9, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0071877

关键词

-

资金

  1. Leibniz association (PAKT project 'Chemical Communication in the Rhizosphere')

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The soil-borne fungal pathogen Verticillium longisporum is able to penetrate the root of a number of plant species and spread systemically via the xylem. Fumigation of Verticillium contaminated soil with Brassica green manure is used as an environmentally friendly method for crop protection. Here we present a study focused on the potential role of glucosinolates and their breakdown products of the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana in suppressing growth of V. longisporum. For this purpose we analysed the glucosinolate composition of the leaves and roots of a set of 19 key accessions of A. thaliana. The effect of volatile glucosinolate hydrolysis products on the in vitro growth of the pathogen was tested by exposing the fungus to hydrated lyophilized plant tissue. Volatiles released from leaf tissue were more effective than from root tissue in suppressing mycelial growth of V. longisporum. The accessions varied in their efficacy, with the most effective suppressing mycelial growth by 90%. An analysis of glucosinolate profiles and their enzymatic degradation products revealed a correlation between fungal growth inhibition and the concentration of alkenyl glucosinolates, particularly 2-propenyl (2Prop) glucosinolate, respectively its hydrolysis products. Exposure of the fungus to purified 2Prop glucosinolate revealed that its suppressive activity was correlated with its concentration. Spiking of 2Prop glucosinolate to leaf material of one of the least effective A. thaliana accessions led to fungal growth suppression. It is suggested that much of the inhibitory effect observed for the tested accessions can be explained by the accumulation of 2Prop glucosinolate.

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

4.6
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