Advertisement

Functional & Integrative Genomics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 95–102 | Cite as

Quantitative trait loci conferring resistance to Fusarium head blight in barley respond differentially to Fusarium graminearum infection

  • Haiyan Jia
  • Benjamin P. Millett
  • Seungho Cho
  • Hatice Bilgic
  • Wayne W. Xu
  • Kevin P. Smith
  • Gary J. MuehlbauerEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Fusarium head blight (FHB), primarily caused by Fusarium graminearum, reduces grain yield and quality in barley. Resistance to FHB is partial and quantitatively inherited. Previously, major FHB resistant QTL were detected on barley chromosome 2H Bin 8 and 2H Bin 10, and another QTL for reduced deoxynivalenol (DON) accumulation was identified on chromosome 3H Bin 6. To develop an understanding of the molecular responses controlled by these loci, we examined DON and fungal biomass levels and the transcriptome differences in near-isogenic line (NIL) pairs carrying contrasting resistant and susceptible alleles at these QTL during F. graminearum infection. No overlap was found among the differentially accumulated transcripts of the three NIL pairs, indicating that the response to infection controlled by the resistance alleles at each QTL may be distinct. Transcripts showing differential accumulation between resistant and susceptible NILs were compared to results from previous wheat/barley–F. graminearum studies and integrated into a wheat/barley–F. graminearum interaction model.

Keywords

Barley Hordeum vulgare Fusarium head blight Near-isogenic line RNA profiling 

Notes

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Dr. R. Dill-Macky for providing the F. graminearum inoculum and Dr. Y. Dong for conducting the mycotoxin and ergosterol assays. We thank Dr. Z. Tu at the Supercomputing Institute for bioinformatics assistance. This work was supported by grants from the U.S. Wheat and Barley Scab Initiative (USDA-ARS) and Minnesota Small Grains Initiative to G.J.M. and a College of Food, Agriculture and Natural Resources Sciences Graduate Student Fellowship and University of Minnesota Graduate School Doctoral Dissertation Fellowship to H.J.

Supplementary material

10142_2010_192_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (60 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Transcripts that exhibited differential accumulation (P ≤ 0.0001; FDR ≤ 0.7%; ≥2.0 fold) between the resistant and susceptible genotypes in the 2Hb8 NIL pair after F. graminearum and water inoculation. (PDF 60 kb)
10142_2010_192_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (47 kb)
Supplementary 2 Transcripts that exhibited differential accumulation (P ≤ 0.0001; FDR ≤ 2%; ≥2.0 fold) between the resistant and susceptible genotypes in the 2Hb10 NIL pair after F. graminearum and water inoculation. (PDF 47 kb)
10142_2010_192_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (34 kb)
Supplementary 3 Transcripts that exhibited differential accumulation (P ≤ 0.0001; FDR ≤ 16%; ≥2.0 fold) between the resistant and susceptible genotypes in the 3Hb6 NIL pair after F. graminearum and water inoculation. (PDF 34 kb)
10142_2010_192_MOESM4_ESM.pptx (98 kb)
Supplementary Figure 1 Map locations of SFPs detected between each NIL pair. One hundred forty-seven of 1,186 single feature polymorphism (SFP) probe sets discovered between each NIL pair were mapped on barley chromosomes 1H to 7H using the integrated SNP genetic map (Close et al. 2009; http://graingenes.org/). Eighty-two, 60, and 5 SFP-containing probes were mapped in 2Hb8 (–), 2Hb10 (o), and 3Hb6 (×) NIL pairs, respectively. Almost half of the mapped 2Hb8 SFPs [38 (46%)] were located in the chromosome 2H region of introgression determined by SSR markers (64–72.7 cM). Approximately one quarter of the 2Hb10 SFPs (13 SFPs) mapped to the marker-defined region of contrast (78.6–89.9 cM) and 40% (24 SFPs) mapped to chromosome 2H. Four of the five mapped 3Hb6 SFPs (80%) were located in the region of contrast on chromosome 3H (52.73–66.6 cM), as determined by SSR markers. (PPT 97 kb)

References

  1. Ansari KI, Walter S, Brennan JM, Lemmens M, Kessans S, McGahern A, Egan D, Doohan FM (2007) Retrotransposon and gene activation in wheat in response to mycotoxigenic and non-mycotoxigenic-associated Fusarium stress. Theor Appl Genet 114:927–937PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aumais JP, Williams SN, Luo W, Nishino M, Caldwell KA, Caldwell GA, Lin S-H, Yu-Lee L-Y (2003) Role for NudC, a dynein-associated nuclear movement protein, in mitosis and cytokinesis. J Cell Sci 116:1991–2003PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaubien KA, Dill-Macky R, Dong Y, Steffenson BJ, Smith KP (2008) Characterizing barley near-isogenic lines for a DON QTL on chromosome 3H. In: Canty SM, Walton E, Clark A, Ellis D, Mundell J, Sanford DAV (eds) Proc national fusarium head blight forum. University of Kentucky, Indianapolis, pp 134–136Google Scholar
  4. Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y (1995) Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J Roy Stat Soc Ser B (Stat Method) 57:289–300Google Scholar
  5. Bernardo A, Bai G, Guo P, Xiao K, Guenzi AC, Ayoubi P (2007) Fusarium graminearum-induced changes in gene expression between Fusarium head blight-resistant and susceptible wheat cultivars. Funct Integr Genomics 7:69–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boddu J, Cho S, Kruger WM, Muehlbauer GJ (2006) Transcriptome analysis of the barley–Fusarium graminearum interaction. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 19:407–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boddu J, Cho S, Muehlbauer GJ (2007) Transcriptome analysis of trichothecene-induced gene expression in barley. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 20:1364–1375CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Close TJ, Wanamaker SI, Caldo RA, Turner SM, Ashlock DA, Dickerson JA, Wing RA, Muehlbauer GJ, Kleinhofs A, Wise RP (2004) A new resource for cereal genomics: 22K barley GeneChip comes of age. Plant Physiol 134:960–968PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Close TJ, Bhat PR, Lonardi S, Wu Y, Rostoks N, Ramsay L, Druka A, Stein N, Svensson JT, Wanamaker S, Bozdag S, Roose ML, Moscou MJ, Chao S, Varshney R, Szűcs P, Sato K, Hayes PM, Matthews DE, Kleinhofs A, Muehlbauer GJ, DeYoung J, Marshall DF, Madishetty K, Fenton RD, Condamine P, Graner A, Waugh R (2009) Development and implementation of high-throughput SNP genotyping in barley. BMC Genomics 10:582PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cordero MJ, Raventós D, San Segundo B (1994) Expression of a maize proteinase inhibitor gene is induced in response to wounding and fungal infection: systemic wound-response of a monocot gene. Plant J 6:141–150PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Csiszár J, Szabó M, Illés E, Kurucz K (2002) Investigations of glutathione S-transferase and peroxidase activities in auxin heterotrophic and autotrophic tobacco calli under salt stress conditions. Proc 7th Hungarian Cong Plant Phys 46:79–80Google Scholar
  12. de la Peña RC, Smith K, Capettini F, Muehlbauer GJ, Gallo-Meagher M, Dill-Macky R, Somers DA, Rasmusson DC (1999) Quantitative trait loci associated with resistance to Fusarium head blight and kernel discoloration in barley. Theor Appl Genet 99:561–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Desjardins AE (2006) Fusarium mycotoxins: chemistry, genetics, and biology. American Phytophthological Society, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  14. Di Gennaro S, Ficca AG, Panichi D, Poerio E (2005) cDNA cloning and heterologous expression of a wheat proteinase inhibitor of subtilisin and chymotrypsin (WSCI) that interferes with digestive enzymes of insect pests. Biol Chem 386:383–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong Y, Steffenson BJ, Mirocha CJ (2006) Analysis of ergosterol in single kernel and ground grain by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem 54:4121–4125PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gardiner SA, Boddu J, Berthiller F, Hametner C, Stupar R, Adam G, Muehlbauer GJ (2010) Transcriptome analysis of the barley–deoxynivalenol interaction: evidence for a role of glutathione in deoxynivalenol detoxification. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 23:962–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Irizarry RA, Hobbs B, Collin F, Beazer-Barclay YD, Antonellis KJ, Scherf U, Speed TP (2003) Exploration, normalization, and summaries of high density oligonucleotide array probe level data. Biostatistics 4:249–264PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ithal N, Recknor J, Nettleton D, Hearne L, Maier T, Baum TJ, Mitchum MG (2007) Parallel genome-wide expression profiling of host and pathogen during soybean cyst nematode infection of soybean. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 20:293–305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jammes F, Lecomte P, de Almeida-Engler J, Bitton F, Martin-Magniette M, Renou JP, Abad P, Favery B (2005) Genomewide expression profiling of the host response to root-knot nematode infection in Arabidopsis. Plant J 44:447–458PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jia H, Cho S, Muehlbauer GJ (2009) Transcriptome analysis of a wheat near-isogenic line pair carrying Fusarium head blight resistant and susceptible alleles. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 22:1366–1378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kandel S, Morant M, Benveniste I, Blee E, Werck-Reichhart D, Pinot F (2005) Cloning, functional expression, and characterization of CYP709C1, the first sub-terminal hydroxylase of long chain fatty acid in plants. Induction by chemicals and methyl jasmonate. J Biol Chem 280:35881–35889PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kliebenstein DJ, West MAL, van Leeuwen H, Kim K, Doerge RW, Michelmore RW, St. Clair DA (2006) Genomic survey of gene expression diversity in Arabidopsis thaliana. Genetics 172:1179–1189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kong L, Anderson JM, Ohm HW (2005) Induction of wheat defense and stress-related genes in response to Fusarium graminearum. Genome 48:29–40PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemmens M, Scholz U, Berthiller F, Dall’Asta C, Koutnik A, Schumacher R, Adam G, Buerstmayr H, Mesterhazy A, Krska R (2005) The ability to detoxify the mycotoxin deoxynivalenol colocalizes with a major quantitative trait locus for Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 18:1318–1324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. McMullen M, Jones R, Gallenberg D (1997) Scab of wheat and barley: a re-emerging disease of devastating impact. Plant Dis 81:1340–1348CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mesfin A, Smith KP, Dill-Macky R, Evans CK, Waugh R, Gustus CD, Muehlbauer GJ (2003) Quantitative trait loci for Fusarium head blight resistance in barley detected in a two-rowed by six-rowed population. Crop Sci 43:307–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Miao Y, Lv D, Wang P, Wang X-C, Chen J, Miao C, Song C-P (2006) An Arabidopsis glutathione peroxidase functions as both a redox transducer and a scavenger in abscisic acid and drought stress responses. Plant Cell 18:2749–2766PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mirocha CJ, Kolaczkowski E, Xie W, Yu H, Jelen H (1998) Analysis of deoxynivalenol and its derivatives (batch and single kernel) using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. J Agric Food Chem 46:1414–1418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nduulu LM, Mesfin A, Muehlbauer GJ, Smith KP (2007) Analysis of the chromosome 2(2H) region of barley associated with the correlated traits Fusarium head blight resistance and heading date. Theor Appl Genet 115:561–570PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Poppenberger B, Berthiller F, Lucyshyn D, Sieberer T, Schuhmacher R, Krska R, Kuchler K, Glössl J, Luschnig C, Adam G (2003) Detoxification of the Fusarium mycotoxin deoxynivalenol by a UDP-glucosyltransferase from Arabidopsis thaliana. J Biol Chem 278:47905–47914PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Puthoff DP, Nettleton D, Rodermel SR, Baum TJ (2003) Arabidopsis gene expression changes during cyst nematode parasitism revealed by statistical analyses of microarray expression profiles. Plant J 33:911–921PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sato K, Hori K, Takeda K (2008) Detection of Fusarium head blight resistance QTLs using five populations of top-cross progeny derived from two-row × two-row crosses in barley. Mol Breed 22:517–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Schuler MA, Werck-Reichhart D (2003) Functional genomics of P450s. Annu Rev Plant Biol 54:629–667PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Schweiger W, Boddu J, Shin S, Poppenberger B, Berthiller F, Lemmens M, Muehlbauer GJ, Adam G (2010) Validation of a candidate deoxynivalenol-inactivating UDP-glucosyltransferase from barley by heterologous expression in yeast. Mol Plant-Microb Interact 23:977–986CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Smith KP, Evans CK, Dill-Macky R, Gustus C, Xie W, Dong Y (2004) Host genetic effect on deoxynivalenol accumulation in Fusarium head blight of barley. Phytopathology 94:766–771PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Steiner B, Kurz H, Lemmens M, Buerstmayr H (2009) Differential gene expression of related wheat lines with contrasting levels of head blight resistance after Fusarium graminearum inoculation. Theor Appl Genet 118:753–764PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Takeda T, Miyao K, Tamoi M, Kanaboshi H, Miyasaka H, Shigeoka S (2003) Molecular characterization of glutathione peroxidase-like protein in halotolerant Chlamydomonas sp. W80. Physiol Plant 117:467–475PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Walter S, Brennan JM, Arunachalam C, Ansari KI, Hu X, Khan MR, Trognitz F, Trognitz B, Leonard G, Egan D, Doohan FM (2008) Components of the gene network associated with genotype-dependent response of wheat to the Fusarium mycotoxin deoxynivalenol. Funct Integr Genomics 8:421–427PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Xu WW, Cho S, Yang SS, Bolon Y-T, Bilgic H, Jia H, Xiong Y, Muehlbauer GJ (2009) Single-feature polymorphism discovery by computing probe affinity shape powers. BMC Genet 10:48. doi: 10.1186/1471-2156-10-48 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Yoshimura K, Miyao K, Gaber A, Takeda T, Kanaboshi H, Miyasaka H, Shigeoka S (2004) Enhancement of stress tolerance in transgenic tobacco plants overexpressing Chlamydomonas glutathione peroxidase in chloroplasts or cytosol. Plant J 37:21–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Haiyan Jia
    • 1
    • 2
  • Benjamin P. Millett
    • 1
  • Seungho Cho
    • 1
    • 3
  • Hatice Bilgic
    • 1
    • 4
  • Wayne W. Xu
    • 5
  • Kevin P. Smith
    • 1
  • Gary J. Muehlbauer
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Agronomy and Plant GeneticsUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA
  2. 2.MonsantoOwatonnaUSA
  3. 3.BASF Plant ScienceResearch Triangle ParkUSA
  4. 4.Department of MedicineUniversity of MinnesotaMinneapolisUSA
  5. 5.Supercomputing Institute for Advanced Computational ResearchUniversity of MinnesotaMinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations