European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 102, Issue 2, pp 127–132 | Cite as

Effects of fusaric acid on cells from tomato cultivars resistant or susceptible toFusarium oxysporum f. sp.Lycopersici

  • I. Gapillout
  • M. -L. Milat
  • J. -P. Blein
Research Articles


Cell suspension cultures were set up from two tomato cultivars, one resistant, (‘Rio grande’) and one susceptible (‘63.5’) toFusarium oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici. Growth rates of the two cell cultures were comparable. Toxicity of fusaric acid, expressed as the fresh weight loss, was analyzed: It was significant in both cases after 10 h, but toxicity was twice as high for ‘63.5’ suspension cells. In the same way, electrolyte leakage caused by fusaric acid was three times more important for ‘63.5’ suspension cells. Moreover, fusaric acid treatment resulted in an acidification of the extracellular medium for ‘63.5’ suspension cells (0.4 pH unit), whereas an alkalization was observed for ‘Rio grande’ suspension cells (0.2 pH unit). Preliminary experiments suggest that fusaric acid was partially metabolized by ‘Rio grande’ suspension cells, however, no detoxified forms of fusaric acid were detected either in cells or in culture filtrates. For these two tomato cultivars, the differences in sensitivity to fusaric acid of cultivated cells correspond to the differences in plant susceptibility toFusarium oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici.

Key words

cell suspension culture ion leakage Lycopersicon esculentum tomato toxicity fusaric acid 







2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid


ethyl acetate


fusaric acid




Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Barna B, Sarhan ART and Kiràly Z (1983) The influence of nitrogen nutrition on the sensitivity of tomato plants to culture filtrates ofFusarium and to fusaric acid. Physiol Plant Pathol 23: 257–263Google Scholar
  2. Chandler MT, Tandeau de Marsac N and de Kouchovsky Y (1972) Photosynthetic growth of tobacco cells in liquid suspension. Can J Bot 50: 2265–2270Google Scholar
  3. Chakrabarti DK and Basu Chaudhary KC (1980) Correlation between virulence and fusaric acid production inFusarium oxysporum f. sp.carthami. Phytopath Z 99: 43–46Google Scholar
  4. D'Alton A and Etherton B (1984) Effects of fusaric acid on tomato root hair membrane potentials and ATP levels. Plant Physiol 74: 39–42Google Scholar
  5. Davis D (1969) Fusaric acid in selective pathogenicity ofFusarium oxysporum. Phytopathology 59: 1391–1395PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Dunkle LD and Wolpert TJ (1981) Independence of milo disease symptoms and electrolyte leakage induced by the host-specific toxin fromPericonia circinata. Physiol Plant Pathol 18: 315–323Google Scholar
  7. GÄumann E (1958) The mechanisms of fusaric acid injury. Phytopathology 48: 670–686Google Scholar
  8. Jullien M (1988) Effects of theFusarium sp. toxins and selection of crude toxin resistant strains in mesophyll cell cultures ofAsparagus officinalis. Plant Physiol Biochem 26: 713–721Google Scholar
  9. Kluepfel D (1957) über die Biosynthese und die Umwandlungen der FusarinsÄure in Tomatenpflanzen. Phytopathol Z 29: 349–379Google Scholar
  10. Köhler K and Bentrup F-W (1983) The effect of fusaric acid upon electrical membrane properties and ATP level in photoautotrophic cell suspension cultures ofChenopodium rubrum. L Z Pflanzenphysiol 109: 355–361Google Scholar
  11. Kuo MS and Scheffer RP (1964) Evaluation of fusaric acid as a factor in development of Fusarium wilt. Phytopathology 54: 1041–1044Google Scholar
  12. Linskens HF (1955) Der Einflu\ der toxigenen Welke auf die Blat-tausscheidungen der Tomatenpflanze. Phytopathol Z 23: 89–106Google Scholar
  13. Marrè MT, Vergani P and Albergoni FG (1993) Relationship between fusaric acid uptake and its binding to cell structures by leaves ofEgeria densa and its toxic effects on membrane permeability and respiration. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 42: 141–157Google Scholar
  14. Mégnégneau B and Branchard M (1988) Toxicity of fusaric acid observed on callus cultures of variousCucumis melo genotypes. Plant Physiol Biochem 26: 585–588Google Scholar
  15. Shahin EA and Spivey R (1986) A single dominant gene forFusarium wilt resistance in protoplast-derived tomato plants. Theor Appl Genet 73: 164–169Google Scholar
  16. Storti E, Latil C, Salti S, Bettini P, Bogani P, Pellegrini M G, Simeti C, Molnar A and Buatti M (1992) Thein vitro physiological phenotype of tomato resistance toFusarium oxysporum f. sp.lycopersici. Theor Appl Genet 84: 123–128Google Scholar
  17. Tisserat B (1985) Embryogenesis, organogenesis and plant regeneration. In: Dixon RA (ed) Plant cell culture: a practical approach. Vol. 1 (pp. 79–105) IRL Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  18. Toyoda H, Hashimoto H, Utsumi R, Kobayashi H and Ouchi S (1988) Detoxification of fusaric acid by a fusaric acid-resistant mutant ofPseudomonas solanacearum and its application to biological control of Fusarium wilt of tomato. Phytopathology 78: 1307–1311Google Scholar
  19. Zaichenko AM and Bogomolova LA (1984) Effect of certain mycotoxins on enzymic activity of carbohydrate metabolism inDendrodochium Toxicum. Mikrobiol Z 46: 38–42Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • I. Gapillout
    • 1
  • M. -L. Milat
    • 1
  • J. -P. Blein
    • 1
  1. 1.Unité Associée Phytopharmacie UA 692INRA-Université de BourgogneDijonFrance

Personalised recommendations