4.7 Article

Comparative Digital Gene Expression Analysis of Tissue-Cultured Plantlets of Highly Resistant and Susceptible Banana Cultivars in Response to Fusarium oxysporum

期刊

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/ijms19020350

关键词

banana Fusarium wilt; DGE; Venn diagram; GO annotation; KEGG pathways; resistance genes

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31272117]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Guangdong Province [2015A030313421]
  3. Key Technologies Research and Development Program of Guangdong Province [2014A020208111]
  4. earmarked fund for Modern Agro-industry Technology Research System [nycytx-33]
  5. Czech Ministry of Education [LO1204]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Banana Fusarium wilt caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc) is one of the most destructive soil-borne diseases. In this study, young tissue-cultured plantlets of banana (Musa spp. AAA) cultivars differing in Foc susceptibility were used to reveal their differential responses to this pathogen using digital gene expression (DGE). Data were evaluated by various bioinformatic tools (Venn diagrams, gene ontology (GO) annotation and Kyoto encyclopedia of genes and genomes (KEGG) pathway analyses) and immunofluorescence labelling method to support the identification of gene candidates determining the resistance of banana against Foc. Interestingly, we have identified MaWRKY50 as an important gene involved in both constitutive and induced resistance. We also identified new genes involved in the resistance of banana to Foc, including several other transcription factors (TFs), pathogenesis-related (PR) genes and some genes related to the plant cell wall biosynthesis or degradation (e.g., pectinesterases, -glucosidases, xyloglucan endotransglucosylase/hydrolase and endoglucanase). The resistant banana cultivar shows activation of PR-3 and PR-4 genes as well as formation of different constitutive cell barriers to restrict spreading of the pathogen. These data suggest new mechanisms of banana resistance to Foc.

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