Journal of Plant Diseases and Protection

, Volume 125, Issue 2, pp 197–204 | Cite as

Compatible- and incompatible-type interactions related to defense genes in potato elucidation by Pectobacterium carotovorum

  • Said I. Behiry
  • Nader A. Ashmawy
  • Ahmed A. Abdelkhalek
  • Hosny A. Younes
  • Ahmed E. Khaled
  • Elsayed E. Hafez
Original Article


The soft rot caused by Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum is the most harmful and damaging bacterial diseases of seed potato production in Egypt. In this study, two cultivars of potato (Nicola-likely resistant and Ladypalfor-likely susceptible) were used to quantify the differentially expressed genes in the infected leaves and characterize their expression levels during pathogencity process. The two potato cultivars were grown in sand-beet moss pots and then inoculated by Pectobacterium. The inoculated potato tissues were taken on intervals, and gene expression analysis was conducted using both of differential display PCR and real-time PCR techniques. Different down-regulated and up-regulated genes were observed in samples treated with P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum PCCS63 isolate compared with control (non-infected). High numbers of differentially expressed genes were obtained by the differential display, and it was noticed that the genetic variability was vigorously shown in the samples taken after 24 h post-inoculation. The same observation was demonstrated by the real-time PCR results, which indicated that the highest expression level of the CHS gene in Ladypalfor tissues was 24 h post-inoculation, but it was very low expressed in the control plants. On the contrary, both the PR2 and PR5 genes were suppressed in the infected potato tissues when compared with the control. Moreover, suppression of PR2 and PR5 reached its maximum level 24 h post-inoculation. It can be concluded that the plant pathogen P. carotovorum succeeded in making suppression for PR2 and PR5 genes but failed to resist elevated level of the induced CHS gene during the infection.


Differential display PCR Real-time PCR Pectobacterium carotovorum Potato, osmotin-like protein, and chalcone synthase 


Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Barras F, Vangijsegem F, Chatterjee AK (1994) Extracellular enzymes and pathogenesis of soft-rot Erwinia. Ann Rev Phytopathol 32:201–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Behiry SI, Younes HA, Ashmawy NA, Khaled AE (2013) Pathogenic variability within applicable groups of inducers and salts to resist potato from soft rot bacteria Pectobacterium carotovorum in vitro. J Adv Agric Res 18(3):550–560Google Scholar
  3. Bell NJ, Dixon AR, Bailey AJ, Rowell MP, Lamb JC (1984) Differential induction of chalcone synthase mRNA activity at the onset of phytoalexin accumulation in compatible and incompatible plant-pathogen interactions. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 81:3384–3388CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. Cahill DM, McComb JA (1992) A comparison of changes in phenylalanine ammonia lyase activity, lignin and phenolics synthesis in the roots of Eucalyptus calopyhlla (field resistant) and E. marginata (susceptible) when infected with Phytophthora cinnamomi. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 40(315):332Google Scholar
  5. Campos AD, Ferreira AG, Hampe MMV, Antunes IF, Brancão N, Silveira EP, da Silva JB, Osório VA (2003) Induction of chalcone synthase and phenylalanine ammonia-lyase by salicylic acid and Colletotrichum lindemuthianum in common bean. Braz J Plant Physiol 15(3):129–134CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cui Y, Magill J, Frederiksen R, Magill C (1996) Chalcone synthase and phenylalanine ammonia lyase mRNA following exposure of sorghum seedlings to three fungal pathogens. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 49:187–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dhekney SA, Li ZT, Gray DJ (2010) Genetically engineered grapevines expressing a cisgenic Vitis vinifera thaumatin-like protein exhibit fungal resistance and improved post-harvest characteristics. In: 12th world congress of the International Association for Plant Biotechnology, St. Louis, June 6th–11th 2010Google Scholar
  8. Dixon RA, Harrison MJ (1990) Activation, structure and organization of genes involved in microbial defense in plants. Adv Genet 28:165–234PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Djami-Tchatchou AT, Allie F, Straker CJ (2013) Expression of defence-related genes in avocado fruit (cv. Fuerte) infected with Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. S Afr J Bot 86:92–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. El-Kazzaz SAI, Ashmawy NA, El-Kasheer HM, Katis NI, Wagih EE (2010) Gene expression of chalcone synthase and stress-related protein-5 and its implication in resistance of pear tissue to Erwinia amylovora. In: The 8th international conference on Pseudomonas syringae pathovars and related pathogens. 31st August–3rd September 2010. Oxford, United Kingdom, p 47Google Scholar
  11. El-kereamy A, El-sharkawy I, Ramamoorthy R, Taheri A, Errampalli D, Kumar P, Jayasankar S (2011) Prunus domestica Pathogenesis-related protein-5 activates the defense response pathway and enhances the resistance to fungal Infection. PLoS ONE 6(3):e17973. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0017973 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. El-Komy MH, Abou-taleb EM, Aboshosha SM, El-sherif EM (2010) Differential expression of potato pathogenesis-related proteins upon infection with late blight pathogen: a case study expression of potato osmotin-like protein. Int J Agric Biol 12:179–186Google Scholar
  13. El-Oirdi M, Trapani A, Bouarab K (2010) The nature of tobacco resistance against Botrytis cinerea depends on the infection structures of the pathogen. Environ Microbiol 12:239–253CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hafez EE, Abdelkhalek AA, Abdel Wahab AS, Galal Fatma H (2013) Altered gene expression: induction/suppression in leek elicited by iris yellow spot virus infection (IYSV) Egyptian isolate. Biotechnol Biotechnol Equip 27(5):4061–4068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hahlbrock K, Scheel D (1989) Physiology and molecular biology of phenyl propanoid metabolism. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Mol Biol 40:347–369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hammerschmidt R (1999) Induced disease resistance: how do induced plants stop pathogens? Phys Mol Plant Path 55:77–84Google Scholar
  17. Hammerschmidt R (2004) Turning a pathogenicity factor against the pathogen. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 65:57–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiba A, Maimbo M, Kanda A, Tomiyama H, Ohnishi K, Hikishi Y (2007) Isolation and expression analysis of candidate genes related to Ralstonia solanacearum–tobacco interaction. Plant Biotechnology 24:409–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Koga J, Kubota H, Gomi S, Umemura K, Ohnishi M et al (2006) Cholic acid, a bile acid elicitor of hypersensitive cell death, pathogenesis-related protein synthesis, and phytoalexin accumulation in rice. Plant Physiol 140:1475–1483CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. Liang P (2009) A decade of differential display. Biotechniques 33:338–346Google Scholar
  21. Liu D, Raghothama KG, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA (1994) Osmotin over-expression in potato delays development of disease symptoms. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:1888–1892CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD (2001) Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 22−ΔΔCT method. Methods 25:402–408CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Montesano M, Brader G, De León IP, Palva ET (2005) Multiple defence signals induced by Erwinia carotovora ssp. carotovora elicitors in potato. Mol Plant Pathol 6(5):541–549CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Munoz CI, Bailey AM (1998) A chitinase-encoding gene from Phytophthora capsici isolated by differential-display RT-PCR Curr. Genet. 33:225–230Google Scholar
  25. Newman M, Conrads-Strauch J, Scofield G, Daniels MJ, Dow JM (1994) Defense-related gene induction in Brassica campestris in Response to defined mutants of Xanthomonas campestris with altered pathogenicity. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 7(5):553–556CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Ngadze E, Icishahayo D, Coutinho TA, van der Waals JE (2012) Role of polyphenol oxidase, peroxidase, phenylalanine ammonia lyase, chlorogenic acid, and total soluble phenols in resistance of potatoes to soft rot. Plant Dis 96:186–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Norman-Setterblad C, Vidal S, Palva ET (2000) Interacting signal pathways control defense gene expression in Arabidopsis in response to cell wall-degrading enzymes from Erwinia carotovora. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13:430–438CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Obembe OO, Jacobsen E, Vincken J, Visser RGF (2009) Differential expression of cellulose synthase (CesA) gene transcripts in potato as revealed by QRT-PCR. Plant Physiol Biochem 47:1116–1118CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Rolf FJ (1993) NTSYS-pc numerical taxonomy and multivariate analysis system, version 1.8. Exeter Software, SetauketGoogle Scholar
  30. Saraiva KDC, Melo DF, Morais VD, Vasconcelos IM, Costa JH (2014) Selection of suitable soybean EF1α genes as internal controls for real-time PCR analyses of tissues during plant development and under stress conditions. Plant Cell Rep 33:1453–1465Google Scholar
  31. Saunders J, O’neill N (2004) The characterization of defense responses to fungal infection in alfalfa. Biocontrol 49:715–728CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Smith CJ (1996) Accumulation of phytoalexins: defence mechanism and stimulus response system. New Phytol 132:1–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sneath PHA, Sokal RR (1975) Numerical taxonomy—the principles and practice of numerical. Syst Zool 24(2):263–268CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tamura K, Peterson D, Peterson N, Stecher G, Nei M (2011) MEGA5: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance and maximum parsimony methods. Mol Biol Evol 28:2731–2739CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Wang ZK, Sun QX (2003) Primary study on the relationship between differential gene expression patterns in roots at jointing stage and heterosis in agronomic traits in a wheat dialed cross. Sci Agric Sin 36:473–479Google Scholar
  36. Yun JI, Lee H, Coca M, Narasimhan M, Uesono Y et al (1998) Osmotin, a plant antifungal protein, subverts signal transduction to enhance fungal cell susceptibility. Mol Cell 1:807–817CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Phytomedizinische Gesellschaft 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Said I. Behiry
    • 1
  • Nader A. Ashmawy
    • 2
  • Ahmed A. Abdelkhalek
    • 3
  • Hosny A. Younes
    • 1
  • Ahmed E. Khaled
    • 1
  • Elsayed E. Hafez
    • 3
  1. 1.Agricultural Botany Department, Faculty of Agriculture (Saba-Basha)Alexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt
  2. 2.Plant Pathology Department, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Chatby)Alexandria UniversityAlexandriaEgypt
  3. 3.Plant Protection and Bimolecular Diagnosis Department, Arid Lands Cultivation Research InstituteCity of Scientific Research and Technological ApplicationsNew Borg El ArabEgypt

Personalised recommendations