4.5 Article

Nodule-Specific Cysteine-Rich Peptides Negatively Regulate Nitrogen-Fixing Symbiosis in a Strain-Specific Manner in Medicago truncatula

期刊

MOLECULAR PLANT-MICROBE INTERACTIONS
卷 31, 期 2, 页码 240-248

出版社

AMER PHYTOPATHOLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-08-17-0207-R

关键词

-

资金

  1. USDA/NIFA's Agriculture and Food Research Initiative [2014-67013-21573]
  2. Kentucky Science and Engineer Foundation [2615-RDE-015]
  3. Hungarian National Research Fund/National Research, Development and Innovation Office (OTKA) [120122/120300]
  4. US National Science Foundation [1355438]
  5. Office Of The Director
  6. Office of Integrative Activities [1355438] Funding Source: National Science Foundation
  7. NIFA [688156, 2014-67013-21573] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Medicago truncatula shows a high level of specificity when interacting with its symbiotic partner Sinorhizobium meliloti. This specificity is mainly manifested at the nitrogen-fixing stage of nodule development, such that a particular bacterial strain forms nitrogen-fixing nodules (Nod(+)/Fix(+)) on one plant genotype but ineffective nodules (Nod(+)/Fix(-)) on another. Recent studies have just begun to reveal the underlying molecular mechanisms that control this specificity. The S. meliloti strain A145 induces the formation of Fix(+) nodules on the accession DZA315.16 but Fix(-) nodules on Jemalong A17. A previous study reported that the formation of Fix(-) nodules on Jemalong A17 by S. meliloti A145 was conditioned by a single recessive allele named Mtsym6. Here we demonstrate that the specificity associated with S. meliloti A145 is controlled by multiple genes in M. truncatula, including NFS1 and NFS2 that encode nodule-specific cysteine-rich (NCR) peptides. The two NCR peptides acted dominantly to block rather than promote nitrogen fixation by S. meliloti A145. These two NCR peptides are the same ones that negatively regulate nitrogen-fixing symbiosis associated with S. meliloti Rm41.

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