European Journal of Plant Pathology

, Volume 143, Issue 4, pp 789–799 | Cite as

Biological control agent Agrobacterium vitis strain ARK-1 suppresses expression of the virD2 and virE2 genes in tumorigenic A. vitis

Article

Abstract

A nonpathogenic strain of Agrobacterium (=Rhizobium) vitis, ARK-1, limits the development of crown gall of grapevine (Vitis vinifera L.). Co-inoculation of grapevine shoots with ARK-1 and the tumorigenic (Ti) strain VAT03-9 at a 1:1 cell ratio resulted in significantly lower expression of the virulence genes virD2 and virE2 of VAT03-9 1 day after inoculation (dai) compared with expression levels when shoots were inoculated only with VAT03-9. In contrast, nonpathogenic A. vitis strain VAR06-30, which does not limit the development of crown gall of grapevine, co-inoculated with VAT03-9 did not affect expression levels of virD2 and virE2 under the same conditions. ARK-1 began to suppress the VAT03-9 population by seven dai, but no such effect was observed with VAR06-30 during the nine dai study period. Thus, the biological control activity of ARK-1 is likely based on the suppression of essential virulence genes.

Keywords

Agrobacterium vitis Grapevine crown gall Biological control RT-qPCR Gene expression 

Supplementary material

10658_2015_730_Fig5_ESM.jpg (81 kb)
Fig. S1

Stability of expression of four candidate reference genes in grapevine shoots. Stability values (M) for the four reference genes were evaluated with the geNorm algorithm (http://medgen.ugent.be/~jvdesomp/genorm/) in bacterial cells of the tumorigenic Agrobacterium vitis strain inoculated into shoots of the grapevine plant. In the plot, genes are ranked from the least (left) to the most (right) stable. The pyrG gene had the highest expression stability among the reference genes, and was chosen for use in the present study. However, the pairwise variations (Vn/Vn+1) did not show values (geNorm V ratio < 0.15) for the optimal number of reference genes (data not shown). (JPEG 80 kb)

10658_2015_730_Fig6_ESM.jpg (170 kb)
Fig. S2

Amplification products of partial sequences of (a) virD2, (b) virE2, and (c) pyrG obtained by RT-qPCR separated by gel electrophoresis. Lanes: M, DNA ladder marker; 1, VAT03-9; 2, ARK-1 plus VAT03-9; 3, VAR06-30 plus VAT03-9; 4, ARK-1; 5, VAR06-30; 6, distilled water. The expected sizes of the RT-PCR products are 61-bp of virD2 (a), 59-bp of virE2 (b), and 69-bp of pyrG (c). (JPEG 170 kb)

10658_2015_730_Fig7_ESM.jpg (207 kb)
Fig. S3

Illustration of the experimental design used to study of the population dynamics during coexistence of the nonpathogenic strains (ARK-1sc or VAR06-30sc) with the tumorigenic strain VAT03-9n in grapevine plants. (a) A 5-μL drop of the mixed cell suspension was dropped onto a needle-prick wound on the grapevine shoot. (b) Shoot samples that included the wound site were collected from 5 plants at each of eight times. (c) After washing and crushing the samples, ten-fold serial dilutions were plated onto St-CuSO4-PSA and nal-PSA media. hai, hours after inoculation; dai, days after inoculation. (JPEG 206 kb)

References

  1. Burr, T. J., & Otten, L. (1999). Crown gall of grape: biology and disease management. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 37, 53–80.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Burr, T. J., & Reid, C. L. (1994). Biological control of grape crown gall with nontumorigenic Agrobacterium vitis F2/5. American Journal of Enology Viticulture, 45, 213–219.Google Scholar
  3. Burr, T. J., Bazzi, C., Süle, S., & Otten, L. (1998). Crown gall of grape: biology of Agrobacterium vitis and the development of disease control strategies. Plant Disease, 82, 1288–1297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bustin, S. A., Benes, V., Garson, J. A., Hellemans, J., Huggett, J., Kubista, M., Mueller, R., Nolan, T., & Pfaffl, M. W. (2009). The MIQE guidelines: minimum information for publication of quantitative real-time PCR experiments. Clinical Chemistry, 55, 611–622.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen, F., Guo, Y. B., Wang, J. H., Li, J. Y., & Wang, H. M. (2007). Biological control of grape crown gall by Rahnella aquatilis HX2. Plant Disease, 91, 957–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gelvin, S. B. (2012). Traversing the cell: Agrobacterium T-DNA’s journey to the host genome. Frontiers Plant Science, 3, 52. doi:10.3389/fpls.2012.00052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones, H. D., Doherty, A., & Wu, H. (2005). Review of methodologies and a protocol for the Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of wheat. Plant Methods, 1, 5–11.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaewnum, S., Zheng, D., Reid, C. L., Johnson, K. L., Gee, J. C., & Burr, T. J. (2013). A host-specific biological control of grape crown gall by Agrobacterium vitis strain F2/5; its regulation and population dynamics. Phytopathology, 103, 427–435.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Kawaguchi, A. (2011). Genetic diversity of Rhizobium vitis strains in Japan based on multilocus sequence analysis using the sequences of pyrG, recA and rpoD. Journal of General Plant Pathology, 77, 299–303.Google Scholar
  10. Kawaguchi, A. (2013). Biological control of crown gall on grapevine and root colonization by nonpathogenic Rhizobium vitis strain ARK-1. Microbes and Environments, 28, 306–311.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Kawaguchi, A. (2014). Reduction of pathogen populations at grapevine wound sites is associated with the mechanism of biological control of crown gall by Rhizobium vitis strain ARK-1. Microbes and Environments, 29, 296–302.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Kawaguchi, A., & Inoue, K. (2012). New antagonistic strains of non-pathogenic Agrobacterium vitis to control grapevine crown gall. Journal of Phytopathology, 160, 509–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kawaguchi, A., Inoue, K., & Ichinose, Y. (2008). Biological control of crown gall of grapevine, rose, and tomato by nonpathogenic Agrobacterium vitis strain VAR03-1. Phytopathology, 98, 1218–1225.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kawaguchi, A., Kondo, K., & Inoue, K. (2012). Biological control of apple crown gall by nonpathogenic Rhizobium vitis strain VAR03-1. Journal of General Plant Pathology, 78, 287–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kerr, A. (1980). Biological control of crown gall through production of agrocin 84. Plant Disease, 64, 25–30.Google Scholar
  16. Lacroix, B., & Citovsky, V. (2013). The roles of bacterial and host plant factors in Agrobacterium-mediated genetic transformation. The International Journal of Developmental Biology, 57, 467–481.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. McCullen, C. A., & Binns, A. N. (2006). Agrobacterium tumefaciens and plant cell interactions and activities required for interkingdom macromolecular transfer. Annual Review of Cell and Developmental Biology, 22, 101–127.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Nester, E. W. (2015). Agrobacterium: nature’s genetic engineer. Frontiers Plant Science, 5, 730. doi:10.3389/ fpls.2014.00730.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Pfaffl, M. W., Horgan, G. W., & Dempfle, L. (2002). Relative expression software tool (REST) for group-wise comparison and statistical analysis of relative expression results in real-time PCR. Nucleic Acids Research, 30, e36.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Staphorst, J. L., van Zyl, F. G. H., Strijdom, B. W., & Groenewold, Z. E. (1985). Agrocin-producing pathogenic and nonpathogenic biotype-3 strains of Agrobacterium tumefaciens active against biotype-3 pathogens. Current Microbiology, 12, 45–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vandesompele, J., De Preter, K., Pattyn, F., Poppe, B., Van Roy, N., De Paepe, A., & Speleman, F. (2002). Accurate normalization of real-time quantitative RT-PCR data by geometric averaging of multiple internal control genes. Genome Biology, 3, research0034.Google Scholar
  22. Wang, H. M., Wang, H. X., Ng, T. B., & Li, J. Y. (2003). Purification and characterization of an antibacterial compound produced by Agrobacterium vitis strain E26 with activity against A. tumefaciens. Plant Pathology, 52, 134–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Young, J. M., Kerr, A., & Sawada, H. (2005). Genus II. Agrobacterium. In G. M. Garrity (Ed.), Bergey’s manual of systematic bacteriology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 340–345). New York: Springer Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Koninklijke Nederlandse Planteziektenkundige Vereniging 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Okayama Prefectural Technology Center for Agriculture, Forestry and FisheriesResearch Institute for AgricultureAkaiwa CityJapan

Personalised recommendations