4.3 Article

Joint Transcriptomic and Metabolomic Analyses Reveal Changes in the Primary Metabolism and Imbalances in the Subgenome Orchestration in the Bread Wheat Molecular Response to Fusarium graminearum

期刊

G3-GENES GENOMES GENETICS
卷 5, 期 12, 页码 2579-2592

出版社

GENETICS SOCIETY AMERICA
DOI: 10.1534/g3.115.021550

关键词

Fusarium head blight; resistance QTL; Fhb1; Qfhs; ifa-5A; deoxynivalenol

资金

  1. Austrian Science Fund (FWF) [SFB F3705, F3706, F3711]
  2. Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) [SFB 924]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fusarium head blight is a prevalent disease of bread wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), which leads to considerable losses in yield and quality. Quantitative resistance to the causative fungus Fusarium graminearum is poorly understood. We integrated transcriptomics and metabolomics data to dissect the molecular response to the fungus and its main virulence factor, the toxin deoxynivalenol in near-isogenic lines segregating for two resistance quantitative trait loci, Fhb1 and Qfhs.ifa-5A. The data sets portrait rearrangements in the primary metabolism and the translational machinery to counter the fungus and the effects of the toxin and highlight distinct changes in the metabolism of glutamate in lines carrying Qfhs.ifa-5A. These observations are possibly due to the activity of two amino acid permeases located in the quantitative trait locus confidence interval, which may contribute to increased pathogen endurance. Mapping to the highly resolved region of Fhb1 reduced the list of candidates to few genes that are specifically expressed in presence of the quantitative trait loci and in response to the pathogen, which include a receptor-like protein kinase, a protein kinase, and an E3 ubiquitin-protein ligase. On a genome-scale level, the individual subgenomes of hexaploid wheat contribute differentially to defense. In particular, the D subgenome exhibited a pronounced response to the pathogen and contributed significantly to the overall defense response.

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

4.3
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