4.6 Article

Transcriptome Comparison between Two Strains of Ustilago esculenta during the Mating

期刊

JOURNAL OF FUNGI
卷 9, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/jof9010032

关键词

Zizania latifolia; Ustilago esculenta; transcriptome; effector

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The transcriptome changes during mating of T- and MT-type Ustilago esculenta were studied and the functions of several secreted proteins were confirmed by knock-out mutants. The results showed that MT-type U. esculenta can receive environmental signals and sense its surroundings like T-type does. However, MT-type takes longer time for conjunction tube formation and cytoplasmic fusion.
Ustilago esculenta is a smut fungus that obligately infects Zizania latifolia and stimulates tissue swelling to form galls. Unlike T-type, MT-type U. esculenta can only proliferate within plant tissues and infect the offspring of their host. Production of telispores, haploid life, and plant cuticle penetration are not essential for it, which may lead to the degeneration in these processes. Transcriptome changes during the mating of T- and MT-type U. esculenta were studied. The functions of several secreted proteins were further confirmed by knock-out mutants. Our results showed that MT-type U. esculenta can receive environmental signals in mating and circumstance sensing as T-type does. However, MT-type U. esculenta takes a longer time for conjunction tube formation and cytoplasmic fusion. A large number of genes encoding secreted proteins are enriched in the purple co-expression module. They are significantly up-regulated in the late stage of mating in T-type U. esculenta, indicating their relationship with infecting. The knock-out of g6161 (xylanase) resulted in an attenuated symptom. The knock-out of g943 or g4344 (function unidentified) completely blocked the infection at an early stage. This study provides a comprehensive comparison between T- and MT-type during mating and identifies two candidate effectors for further study.

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