4.7 Article

Differential Stem Proteomics and Metabolomics Profiles for Four Wheat Cultivars in Response to the Insect Pest Wheat Stem Sawfly

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 19, 期 3, 页码 1037-1051

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.9b00561

关键词

liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; defense to herbivory; direct and indirect defenses; primary and secondary metabolisms

资金

  1. Colorado Wheat Research Foundation
  2. Colorado State University Agricultural Experiment Station

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Common wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) is a global staple crop, and insect pests can impact grain yield. The wheat stem sawfly (Cephus cinctus, WSS) is a major wheat pest, and while partial resistance has been deployed by breeding for a solid-stem trait, this trait is affected by environment. Here, a proteomics and metabolomics study was performed on four wheat cultivars to characterize a molecular response to WSS infestation. The cultivars Hatcher (hollow-stem partially tolerant), Conan (semisolid-stem-resistant), and Denali and Reeder (hollow-stem-susceptible) were infested with WSS, and changes in stem proteins and metabolites were characterized using liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. The proteome was characterized as 1830 proteins that included five major biological processes, including metabolic processes and response to stimuli, and the metabolome (1823 metabolites) spanned eight chemical super-classes, including alkaloids, benzenoids, and lipids. All four varieties had a molecular response to WSS following infestation. Hatcher had the most distinct changes, whereby 62 proteins and 29 metabolites varied in metabolic pathways involving enzymatic detoxification, proteinase inhibition, and antiherbivory compound production via benzoxazinoids, neolignans, and phenolics. Taken together, these data demonstrate variation in the wheat stem molecular response to WSS infestation and support breeding for molecular resistance in hollow-stem cultivars.

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

4.7
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