Theoretical and Applied Genetics

, Volume 84, Issue 1–2, pp 123–128 | Cite as

The in vitro physiological phenotype of tomato resistance to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici

  • E. Storti
  • C. Latil
  • S. Salti
  • P. Bettini
  • P. Bogani
  • M. G. Pellegrini
  • C. Simeti
  • A. Molnar
  • M. Buiatti
Article

Summary

With the aim of dissecting host-parasite interaction processes in the system Lycopersicon aesculentum-Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici we have isolated plant cell mutants having single-step alterations in their defense response. A previous analysis of the physiological phenotypes of mutant cell clones suggested that recognition is the crucial event for active defence, and that polysaccharide content, fungal growth inhibition, peroxidase induction in in vitro dual culture and ion leakage induced by cultural filtrates of the pathogen can be markers of resistance. In this paper we present the results of a similar analysis carried out on cell cultures from one susceptible (‘Red River’), one tolerant (‘UC 105’) and three resistant (‘Davis UC 82’, ‘Heinz’, ‘UC 90’) tomato cultivars. Our data confirm that the differences in the parameters considered are correlated with resistance versus susceptibility in vivo. Therefore, these parameters can be used for early screening in selection programmes. These data, together with those obtained on isolated cell mutants, suggest that the selection in vitro for altered fungal recognition and/or polysaccharide or callose content may lead to in vivo — resistant genotypes. The data are thoroughly discussed with particular attention paid to the importance of polysaccharides in active defense initiation.

Key words

Recognition Resistance In vitro selection Tomato Fusarium 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference

  1. Beckman CH (1987) Genetic variation in the host and pathogen. In: The nature of wilt disease of plants. Academic Press New York, pp 103–116Google Scholar
  2. Beckman CH, Mueller WC, Tessiar BJ, Harrison NA (1982) Recognition and callose deposition in response to vascular infection in Fusarium wilt resistant or susceptible tomato plants. Physiol Plant Pathol 20:1–10Google Scholar
  3. Bell DA, Mace ME (1981) Biochemistry and physiology of resistance. In: Mace ME, Bell AA, Beckman CH (eds) Fungal wilt diseases of plants. Academic Press, New York, pp 431–486Google Scholar
  4. Bradford M (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein using the principles of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254Google Scholar
  5. Buiatti M, Ingram DS (1991) Phytotoxins as tools in breeding and selection of disease resistant plants. Experientia 47:811–819Google Scholar
  6. Buiatti M, Scala A, Bettini P, Nascari G, Morpurgo R, Bogani P, Pellegrini MG, Gimelli F, Venturo R (1985) Correlation between in vivo resistance to Fusarium and in vitro response to fungal elicitors and toxic substances in carnation. Theor Appl Genet 70:42–47Google Scholar
  7. Buiatti M, Simeti C, Marcheschi G, Scala A, Bettini P, Bogani P, Pellegrini MG (1987) Isolation of tomato cell lines with altered response to Fusarium cell wall components. Theor Appl Genet 75:37–40Google Scholar
  8. Darvill AG, Albersheim P (1984) Phytoalexins and their elicitors — a defense against microbial infection in plant. Annu Rev Plant Physiol 35:243–298Google Scholar
  9. Friend J (1976) Lignification in infected tissue. In: Friend J, Threlfall DR (eds) Biochemical aspects of plant parasite relationship. Academic Press, New York, pp 291–303Google Scholar
  10. Grzelinska A (1976) Peroxidase isoenzyme in Fusarium infected tomato plant. 73:154–159Google Scholar
  11. Haskins F (1955) Changes in the activities of several enzymes during germination and seedling development in corn (Zea mays L.). Plant Physiol 30:74–79Google Scholar
  12. Hodge JE, Hofreiter BT (1962) Determination of reducing sugars and carbohydrates. In: Methods in carbohydrates chemistry ed. by Whister RL, Wolfram ML. Vol. 1, Academic Press New York, pp 380–394Google Scholar
  13. Kay LE, Basile DV (1987) Specific peroxidase isoenzymes are correlated with organogenesis. Plant Physiol 84:99–105Google Scholar
  14. Kroon BAM, Scheffer RJ, Elgersma DM (1991) Interactions between Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici and callus of susceptible and resistant tomato lines: fungal growth and phytoalexin accumulation (in press)Google Scholar
  15. Matta A, Gentile I, Giai I (1970) Differential inhibition and activation in healthy and Fusarium-infected tomato plants. Phytopathol Mediterr 9:168–175Google Scholar
  16. Mueller WC, Beckman CH (1988) Correlated light and electron microscope studies of callose deposits in vascular parenchyma cells of tomato plants inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 33:201–209Google Scholar
  17. Scala A, Bettini P, Bogani P, Pellegrini MG, Tognoni F (1985) Tomato-Fusarium interaction: in vitro analysis of several possible pathogenic factors. Phytopathol Z 113:90–94Google Scholar
  18. Shahin EA, Spivey R (1986) A single dominant gene for Fusarium wilt resistance in protoplast-derived tomato plants. Theor Appl Genet 73:154–159Google Scholar
  19. Storti E, Bogani P, Bettini P, Bonzi Morassi L, Pellegrini MG, Matteo M, Simeti C, Buiatti M (1989) The pleiotropic phenotype of tomato cells selected for altered response to Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici cell wall components. Theor Appl Genet 78:689–695Google Scholar
  20. Storti E, Buiatti M, Bettini P, Pellegrini MG, Bogani P, Matteo M, Simeti C (1990) Active defense processes and in vitro selection for resistance to pathogens. Acta Hortic 280:361–366Google Scholar
  21. Vandermolen GE, Beckman CH, Rodehorst E (1977) Vascular gelation a general response phenomenon following infection. Physiol Plant Pathol 11:95–100Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • E. Storti
    • 1
  • C. Latil
    • 1
  • S. Salti
    • 1
  • P. Bettini
    • 1
  • P. Bogani
    • 1
  • M. G. Pellegrini
    • 1
  • C. Simeti
    • 1
  • A. Molnar
    • 1
  • M. Buiatti
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Animal Biology and GeneticsFirenzeItaly

Personalised recommendations