4.5 Article

Proteomic and morphometric study of the in vitro interaction between Oncidium sphacelatum Lindl. (Orchidaceae) and Thanatephorus sp RG26 (Ceratobasidiaceae)

期刊

MYCORRHIZA
卷 26, 期 5, 页码 353-365

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00572-015-0676-x

关键词

Protocorm; Orchid mycorrhiza; Symbiosis; Rhizoctonia; Ceratobasidium

资金

  1. Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnologia scholarship [355415]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Orchidaceae establish symbiotic relationships with fungi in the Rhizoctonia group, resulting in interactions beneficial to both organisms or in cell destruction in one of them (pathogenicity). Previous studies have focused mostly on terrestrial species with a few, preliminary studies, on epiphytes. To further our understanding of the molecular mechanisms involved in these symbioses, we evaluated the interaction between Oncidium sphacelatum Lindl. and the mycorrhizal fungus Thanatephorus sp. strain RG26 (isolated from a different orchid species) in vitro using morphometric and proteomic analyses. Evidence from the morphometric and microscopic analysis showed that the fungus promoted linear growth and differentiation of orchid protocorms during 98 days interaction. On day 63, protocorm development was evident, so we analyzed the physiological response of both organisms at that moment. Proteome results suggest that orchid development stimulated by the fungus apparently involves cell cycle proteins, purine recycling, ribosome biogenesis, energy metabolism, and secretion that were up-regulated in the orchid; whereas in the fungus, a high expression of proteins implicated in stress response, protein-protein interaction, and saccharides and protein biosynthesis were found in the symbiotic interaction. This is the first work reporting proteins differentially expressed in the epiphytic orchid-fungus interaction and will contribute to the search for molecular markers that will facilitate the study of this symbiosis in both wild orchids and those in danger of extinction.

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