Article

Rapid mobilization of membrane lipids in wheat leaf sheaths during incompatible interactions with Hessian fly.

Department of Biological Science, Fayetteville State University, Fayetteville, NC 28301, USA.
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions (Impact Factor: 4.46). 07/2012; 25(7):920-30. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-01-12-0022-R
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Hessian fly (HF) is a biotrophic insect that interacts with wheat on a gene-for-gene basis. We profiled changes in membrane lipids in two isogenic wheat lines: a susceptible line and its backcrossed offspring containing the resistance gene H13. Our results revealed a 32 to 45% reduction in total concentrations of 129 lipid species in resistant plants during incompatible interactions within 24 h after HF attack. A smaller and delayed response was observed in susceptible plants during compatible interactions. Microarray and real-time polymerase chain reaction analyses of 168 lipid-metabolism-related transcripts revealed that the abundance of many of these transcripts increased rapidly in resistant plants after HF attack but did not change in susceptible plants. In association with the rapid mobilization of membrane lipids, the concentrations of some fatty acids and 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid (OPDA) increased specifically in resistant plants. Exogenous application of OPDA increased mortality of HF larvae significantly. Collectively, our data, along with previously published results, indicate that the lipids were mobilized through lipolysis, producing free fatty acids, which were likely further converted into oxylipins and other defense molecules. Our results suggest that rapid mobilization of membrane lipids constitutes an important step for wheat to defend against HF attack.

0 Followers
 · 
133 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In this review, we argue for a research initiative on wheat's responses to biotic stress. One goal is to begin a conversation between the disparate communities of plant pathology and entomology. Another is to understand how responses to a variety of agents of biotic stress are integrated in an important crop. We propose gene-for-gene interactions as the focus of the research initiative. On the parasite's side is an Avirulence (Avr) gene that encodes one of the many effector proteins the parasite applies to the plant to assist with colonization. On the plant's side is a Resistance (R) gene that mediates a surveillance system that detects the Avr protein directly or indirectly and triggers effector-triggered plant immunity. Even though arthropods are responsible for a significant proportion of plant biotic stress, they have not been integrated into important models of plant immunity that come from plant pathology. A roadblock has been the absence of molecular evidence for arthropod Avr effectors. Thirty years after this evidence was discovered in a plant pathogen, there is now evidence for arthropods with the cloning of the Hessian fly's vH13 Avr gene. After reviewing the two models of plant immunity, we discuss how arthropods could be incorporated. We end by showing features that make wheat an interesting system for plant immunity, including 479 resistance genes known from agriculture that target viruses, bacteria, fungi, nematodes, insects, and mites. It is not likely that humans will be subsisting on Arabidopsis in the year 2050. It is time to start understanding how agricultural plants integrate responses to biotic stress. © The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Society for Experimental Biology. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.
    Journal of Experimental Botany 12/2014; 66(2). DOI:10.1093/jxb/eru465 · 5.79 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Glutathione, γ-glutamylcysteinylglycine, exists abundantly in nearly all organisms. Glutathione participates in various physiological processes involved in redox reactions by serving as an electron donor/acceptor. We found that the abundance of total glutathione increased up to 60% in resistant wheat plants within 72 hours following attack by the gall midge Mayetiola destructor, the Hessian fly. The increase in total glutathione abundance, however, is coupled with an unbalanced activation of glutathione metabolic pathways. The activity and transcript abundance of glutathione peroxidases, which convert reduced glutathione (GSH) to oxidized glutathione (GSSG), increased in infested resistant plants. However, the enzymatic activity and transcript abundance of glutathione reductases, which convert GSSG back to GSH, did not change. This unbalanced regulation of the glutathione oxidation/reduction cycle indicates the existence of an alternative pathway to regenerate GSH from GSSG to maintain a stable GSSG/GSH ratio. Our data suggest the possibility that GSSG is transported from cytosol to apoplast to serve as an oxidant for class III peroxidases to generate reactive oxygen species for plant defense against Hessian fly larvae. Our results provide a foundation for elucidating the molecular processes involved in glutathione-mediated plant resistance to Hessian fly and potentially other pests as well.
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Heat stress exerts significant impact on plant‐parasite interactions. Phytohormones, such as salicylic acid (SA), play important roles in plant defense against parasite attacks. Here, we studied the impact of a combination of heat stress and exogenous SA on the resistance of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) plants to the Hessian fly [Mayetiola destructor (Say)]. We found that the wheat cultivar ‘Molly’, which contains the resistance gene H13, lost resistance to Hessian fly under heat stress (40°C for 3 and 6 h), and that exogenous application of SA on Molly seedlings right before heat stress can partially prevent the loss of resistance of Molly plants under heat conditions. Our findings have significant implications for understanding the dynamics of plant‐insect interactions in the context of heat stress.
    Journal of Economic Entomology 10/2014; 107(5). DOI:10.1603/EC14223 · 1.61 Impact Factor