Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) in Arabidopsis requires sensitivity to jasmonate and ethylene but is not accompanied by an increase in their production

Plants develop an enhanced defensive capacity against a broad spectrum of plant pathogens after colonization of the roots by selected strains of nonpathogenic biocontrol bacteria. In Arabidopsis thaliana, this induced systemic resistance (ISR) functions independently of salicylic acid but requires an intact response to the plant hormones jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene. To further investigate the roles of JA and ethylene in the ISR signalling pathway, the levels of these signalling molecules were determined in A. thaliana upon induction of ISR by Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r and subsequent challenge inoculation with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Upon treatment of the roots with ISR-inducing WCS417r bacteria, neither the JA content, nor the level of ethylene evolution was altered in systemically resistant leaves. Infiltration of leaves with WCS417r triggered the JA- and ethylene-dependent ISR pathway, but did not cause local changes in the production of either of these signalling molecules. These results indicate that rhizobacteria-mediated ISR is not based on the induction of changes in the biosynthesis of either JA or ethylene. However, in ISR-expressing plants the capacity to convert 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) to ethylene was significantly enhanced, providing a greater potential to produce ethylene upon pathogen attack

Characterization of Arabidopsis enhanced disease susceptibility mutants that are affected in systemically induced resistance.

In Arabidopsis, the rhizobacterial strain Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r triggers jasmonate (JA)- and ethylene (ET)-dependent induced systemic resistance (ISR) that is effective against different pathogens. Arabidopsis genotypes unable to express rhizobacteria-mediated ISR against the bacterial pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (Pst DC3000) exhibit enhanced disease susceptibility towards this pathogen. To identify novel components controlling induced resistance, we tested 11 Arabidopsis mutants with enhanced disease susceptibility (eds) to pathogenic P. syringae bacteria for WCS417r-mediated ISR and pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Mutants eds4-1, eds8-1 and eds10-1 failed to develop WCS417r-mediated ISR, while mutants eds5-1 and eds12-1 failed to express pathogen-induced SAR. Whereas eds5-1 is known to be blocked in salicylic acid (SA) biosynthesis, analysis of eds12-1 revealed that its impaired SAR response is caused by reduced sensitivity to this molecule. Analysis of the ISR-impaired eds mutants revealed that they are non-responsive to induction of resistance by methyl jasmonate (MeJA) (eds4-1, eds8-1 and eds10-1), or the ET precursor 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) (eds4-1 and eds10-1). Moreover, eds4-1 and eds8-1 showed reduced expression of the plant defensin gene PDF1.2 after MeJA and ACC treatment, which was associated with reduced sensitivity to either ET (eds4-1) or MeJA (eds8-1). Although blocked in WCS417r-, MeJA- and ACC-induced ISR, eds10-1 behaved normally for several other responses to MeJA or ACC. The results indicate that EDS12 is required for SAR and acts downstream of SA, whereas EDS4, EDS8 and EDS10 are required for ISR acting either in JA signalling (EDS8), ET signalling (EDS4), or downstream JA and ET signalling (EDS10) in the ISR pathway

Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) in Arabidopsis requires sensitivity to jasmonate and ethylene but is not accompanied by an increase in their production

Plants develop an enhanced defensive capacity against a broad spectrum of plant pathogens after colonization of the roots by selected strains of nonpathogenic biocontrol bacteria. In Arabidopsis thaliana, this induced systemic resistance (ISR) functions independently of salicylic acid but requires an intact response to the plant hormones jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene. To further investigate the roles of JA and ethylene in the ISR signalling pathway, the levels of these signalling molecules were determined in A. thaliana upon induction of ISR by Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r and subsequent challenge inoculation with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000. Upon treatment of the roots with ISR-inducing WCS417r bacteria, neither the JA content, nor the level of ethylene evolution was altered in systemically resistant leaves. Infiltration of leaves with WCS417r triggered the JA- and ethylene-dependent ISR pathway, but did not cause local changes in the production of either of these signalling molecules. These results indicate that rhizobacteria-mediated ISR is not based on the induction of changes in the biosynthesis of either JA or ethylene. However, in ISR-expressing plants the capacity to convert 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) to ethylene was significantly enhanced, providing a greater potential to produce ethylene upon pathogen attack

Changes in the composition of cotton fibre cell walls during development

Purified cell walls, prepared from cotton fibres (Gossypium arboreum L.) at different growth stages, were subjected to successive extractions to give pectic, hemicellulosic, and agr-cellulosic fractions. The protein content and sugars obtained after hydrolysis of the total cell walls and of the various fractions were quantitatively estimated. The amount of protein in the fibre cell walls from one ovule reached a maximum value at the end of the elongation growth, decreased, and then reached a second maximum at the end of the secondary wall deposition. The absolute amounts of fucose, galactose, mannose, rhamnose, arabinose, uronic acid, and non-cellulosic glucose residues all reached a maximum at the end of the primary wall formation or at the beginning of the secondary wall formation. Only the absolute amounts of xylose and of the cellulosic glucose residues increased until the end of the fibre development. Most conspicuous was the decrease in the absolute amounts of non-cellulosic glucose and of arabinose residues during the secondary wall formation, possibly indicating a turnover of at least some of the hemicellulosic wall material

Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack

Plant defenses against pathogens and insects are regulated differentially by cross-communicating signaling pathways in which salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) play key roles. To understand how plants integrate pathogen- and insect-induced signals into specific defense responses, we monitored the dynamics of SA, JA, and ET signaling in Arabidopsis after attack by a set of microbial pathogens and herbivorous insects with different modes of attack. Arabidopsis plants were exposed to a pathogenic leaf bacterium (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), a pathogenic leaf fungus (Alternaria brassicicola), tissue-chewing caterpillars (Pieris rapae), cell-content-feeding thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), or phloem-feeding aphids (Myzus persicae). Monitoring the signal signature in each plant-attacker combination showed that the kinetics of SA, JA, and ET production varies greatly in both quantity and timing. Analysis of global gene expression profiles demonstrated that the signal signature characteristic of each Arabidopsis-attacker combination is orchestrated into a surprisingly complex set of transcriptional alterations in which, in all cases, stress-related genes are overrepresented. Comparison of the transcript profiles revealed that consistent changes induced by pathogens and insects with very different modes of attack can show considerable overlap. Of all consistent changes induced by A. brassicicola, Pieris rapae, and F occidentalis, more than 50% also were induced consistently by R syringae. Notably, although these four attackers all stimulated JA biosynthesis, the majority of the changes in JA-responsive gene expression were attacker specific. All together, our study shows that SA, JA, and ET play a primary role in the orchestration of the plant's defense response, but other regulatory mechanisms, such as pathway cross-talk or additional attacker-induced signals, eventually shape the highly complex attacker-specific defense response

Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack

Plant defenses against pathogens and insects are regulated differentially by cross-communicating signaling pathways in which salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) play key roles. To understand how plants integrate pathogen- and insect-induced signals into specific defense responses, we monitored the dynamics of SA, JA, and ET signaling in Arabidopsis after attack by a set of microbial pathogens and herbivorous insects with different modes of attack. Arabidopsis plants were exposed to a pathogenic leaf bacterium (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), a pathogenic leaf fungus (Alternaria brassicicola), tissue-chewing caterpillars (Pieris rapae), cell-content-feeding thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), or phloem-feeding aphids (Myzus persicae). Monitoring the signal signature in each plant-attacker combination showed that the kinetics of SA, JA, and ET production varies greatly in both quantity and timing. Analysis of global gene expression profiles demonstrated that the signal signature characteristic of each Arabidopsis-attacker combination is orchestrated into a surprisingly complex set of transcriptional alterations in which, in all cases, stress-related genes are overrepresented. Comparison of the transcript profiles revealed that consistent changes induced by pathogens and insects with very different modes of attack can show considerable overlap. Of all consistent changes induced by A. brassicicola, Pieris rapae, and E occidentalis, more than 50% also were induced consistently by P. syringae. Notably, although these four attackers all stimulated JA biosynthesis, the majority of the changes in JA-responsive gene expression were attacker specific. All together, our study shows that SA, JA, and ET play a primary role in the orchestration of the plant's defense response, but other regulatory mechanisms, such as pathway cross-talk or additional attacker-induced signals, eventually shape the highly complex attacker-specific defense response

Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack

Plant defenses against pathogens and insects are regulated differentially by cross-communicating signaling pathways in which salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) play key roles. To understand how plants integrate pathogen- and insect-induced signals into specific defense responses, we monitored the dynamics of SA, JA, and ET signaling in Arabidopsis after attack by a set of microbial pathogens and herbivorous insects with different modes of attack. Arabidopsis plants were exposed to a pathogenic leaf bacterium (Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato), a pathogenic leaf fungus (Alternaria brassicicola), tissuechewing caterpillars (Pieris rapae), cell-content-feeding thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis), or phloem-feeding aphids (Myzus persicae). Monitoring the signal signature in each plant-attacker combination showed that the kinetics of SA, JA, and ET production varies greatly in both quantity and timing. Analysis of global gene expression profiles demonstrated that the signal signature characteristic of each Arabidopsis-attacker combination is orchestrated into a surprisingly complex set of transcriptional alterations in which, in all cases, stress-related genes are overrepresented. Comparison of the transcript profiles revealed that consistent changes induced by pathogens and insects with very different modes of attack can show considerable overlap. Of all consistent changes induced by A. brassicicola, Pieris rapae, and F. occidentalis, more than 50% also were induced consistently by P. syringae. Notably, although these four attackers all stimulated JA biosynthesis, the majority of the changes in JA-responsive gene expression were attacker specific. All together, our study shows that SA, JA, and ET play a primary role in the orchestration of the plant’s defense response, but other regulatory mechanisms, such as pathway cross-talk or additional attacker-induced signals, eventually shape the highly complex attacker-specific defense response