Advertisement

European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 149, Issue 2, pp 245–251 | Cite as

Phenolic content as an indicator of tolerance of cowpea seedlings to Sclerotium rolfsii

  • Appolinaire AdandononEmail author
  • Thierry Regnier
  • Theresa A. S. Aveling
Article

Abstract

The role of phenolics in plant tolerance to pathogen infection is well documented. The objective of the present preliminary investigation was to study phenolic metabolites involved in the tolerance or susceptibility of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata Walp.) cultivars to Sclerotium rolfsii Sacc. and to use their presence as a possible screening tool. Total, free acid, ester-bound and cell wall-bound phenolics of 10 cowpea cultivars were quantified. In healthy seedlings, the tolerant cultivars displayed the higher phenol content than the susceptible cultivars. In S. rolfsii infected seedlings, the highest increase was found from 48 h after inoculation. The net effect of inoculation was a 630% increase in total phenolics (soluble and insoluble) in the stem of tolerant cultivars while the total phenolic content increased only by 212% in the stems of susceptible cultivars. Although, no significant difference (P = 0.05) was detected among cultivars, in terms of free acid phenolics, the amount of ester-bound and cell wall-bound phenolics significantly increased, therefore demonstrating a similar trend to the one observed for the total phenolic content. These preliminary results showed that the presence of phenolics before and after S. rolfsii infection may be used as a rapid screening method for detection of tolerance to S. rolfsii damping-off and stem rot of cowpea.

Keywords

Cinnamic acids Phenolics Phytoalexin Resistance Sclerotium Vigna unguiculata 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the National Research Foundation, South Africa, for their financial support.

References

  1. Adandonon, A., Aveling, T. A. S., Labuschagne, N., & Ahohuendo, B. C. (2005a). Etiology of and effect of environmental factors on damping-off and stem rot of cowpea in Benin. Phytoparasitica, 33, 65–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adandonon, A., Aveling, T. A. S., & Tamo, M. (2005b). A new laboratory technique for rapid screening of cowpea cultivars for resistance to damping-off and stem rot caused by Sclerotium rolfsii. International Edible Legume Conference in conjunction with IV World Cowpea Congress, 17–21 April 2005, Durban, South Africa.Google Scholar
  3. Aveling, T. A. S., & Powell, A. A. (2005). Effect of seed storage and seed coat pigmentation on susceptibility of cowpeas to pre-emergence damping-off. Seed Science and Technology, 33(2), 461–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bailey, J. A., & Mansfield, J. W. (1982). Phytoalexins. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  5. Basha, E., Friedrich, K. L., & Vierling, E. (2006). The N-terminal arm of small heat shock proteins is important for both chaperone activity and substrate specificity. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 281, 39943–39952.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Chen, C. Q., Belanger, R. R., Benhamou, N., & Paulitz, T. C. (2000). Defense enzymes induced in cucumber roots by treatment with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and Pythium aphanidermatum. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 56, 13–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Du Plooy, W., Regnier, T., & Combrinck, S. (2009). Essential oil amended coatings as alternatives to synthetic fungicides in citrus postharvest management. Postharvest Biology and Technology, 53, 117–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fry, S. C. (1979). Phenolic components of the primary cell wall and their possible role in the hormonal regulation of growth. Planta, 146, 343–351.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Harborne, J. B. (1988). Introduction to ecological biochemistry. Third edition. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
  10. Jain, A., Singh, S., Sarma, B. K., & Singh, H. B. (2011). Microbial consortium–mediated reprogramming of defense network in pea to enhance tolerance against Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Journal of Applied Microbiology, 112, 537–550.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kritzinger, Q., Aveling, T. A. S., & Marasas, W. F. O. (2002). Effect of essential plant oils on storage fungi, germination and emergence of cowpea seeds. Seed Science and Technology, 30(3), 609–619.Google Scholar
  12. Kuć, J. (1995). Phytoalexins, stress metabolic, and disease resistance in plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 33, 275–297.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Maurya, S., Singh, R., Singh, D. P., Singh, H. B., Srivastava, J. S., & Singh, U. P. (2007). Phenolic compounds of Sorghum vulgare in response to Sclerotium rolfsii infection. Journal of Plant Interaction, 2, 25–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mohammadi, M., & Kazemi, H. (2002). Changes in peroxidase and polyphenol activity in susceptible and resistant wheat heads inoculated with Fusarium graminearum and induced resistance. Plant Sciences, 162, 491–498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Morrissey, J. P., & Osbourn, A. E. (1999). Fungal resistance to plant antibiotics as a mechanism of pathogenesis. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 63(3), 708–724.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Nandi, S., Dutta, S., Mondal, A., Adhikari, A., Nath, R., Chattopadhaya, A., & Chaudhuri, S. (2013). Biochemical responses during the pathogenesis of Sclerotium rolfsii on cowpea. African Journal Biotechnology, 12, 3968–3977.Google Scholar
  17. Nicholson, R. L., & Hammerschmidt, R. (1992). Phenolic compounds and their role in disease resistance. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 30, 369–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pakela, Y. P. (2003). Interaction between Colletotrichum dematium and cowpea. PhD thesis, University of Pretoria, Pretoria.Google Scholar
  19. PEDUNE-BENIN. Projet Protection Ecologiquement Durable du Niébé, volet Bénin. (1995). Enquêtes exploratoire et diagnostique sur la situation du niébé au Benin. Rapport d’enquête. (ecologically sustainable cowpea plant protection in Benin. Exploratory and diagnostic surveys of cowpea production in Benin. Survey reports). INRAB, Cotonou.Google Scholar
  20. Regnier, T. (1994). Les composés phénoliques du blé dur (Triticum turgidum L. var. durum): Variations au cours du développement et de la maturation du grain, relations avec l’apparition de la moucheture. Thèse de Doctorat d’Etat. Université Montpellier II, France.Google Scholar
  21. Saraswathi, M., & Reddy, M. N. (2012). Phenolic acids associated with Sclerotium rolfsii in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) during pathogenesis. International Journal of Plant Pathology, 3, 82–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Sarma, B. K., Singh, D. P., Mehta, S., Singh, H. B., & Singh, U. P. (2002). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria-elicited alterations in phenolic profile of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) infected by Sclerotium rolfsii. Journal of Phytopathology, 150, 277–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Singh, A., Jain, A., Sarma, B. K., Upadhyaya, R. S., & Singh, H. B. (2014). Rhizosphere competent microbial consortium mediates rapid changes in phenolic profiles in chickpea during Sclerotium rolfsii infection. Microbiological Research, 169, 353–360.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Planteziektenkundige Vereniging 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Appolinaire Adandonon
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Thierry Regnier
    • 3
  • Theresa A. S. Aveling
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Crop and Seed Production and ManagementNational University of AgricultureCotonouRepublic of Benin
  2. 2.Department of Plant and Soil Sciences, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology InstituteUniversity of PretoriaPretoriaSouth Africa
  3. 3.Department of Biotechnology and Food TechnologyTshwane University of TechnologyPretoriaSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations