Australasian Plant Pathology

, Volume 39, Issue 6, pp 499–507 | Cite as

Growth of Pyrenophora teres in planta during barley net blotch disease

Article

Abstract

The two forms of barley net blotch disease, spot form and net form, are caused by Pyrenophora teres f. maculata (Ptm) and P. teres f. teres (Ptt) respectively. While Ptm and Ptt are genetically very similar, their disease pathophysiologies are different. Ptm causes circular or elliptical brown lesions whereas Ptt causes distinctive dark-brown, longitudinal lesions. In this study, we have demonstrated that these distinct disease symptoms may be explained by differences in fungal growth. Ptm appeared to initially grow as a biotroph forming intracellular vesicles within epidermal cells before switching to necrotrophic (intercellular) growth in the mesophyll. In contrast, Ptt appeared to avoid the biotrophic stage and established itself within the mesophyll more quickly. Symptom development was considerably lessened during seedling and adult plant resistance to Ptt, even though growth of the pathogen was still quite similar to that seen on a susceptible cultivar (albeit not as extensively). In a detached leaf system, net blotch symptoms did not develop and extensive Ptt growth occurred on leaves of a resistant barley line, suggesting in planta studies are more reliable. The greater knowledge of both forms of P. teres contributed by this study may enable development of resistance strategies to these pathogens.

Additional Keywords

hemibiotrophic fungus infection process 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Able AJ (2003) Role of reactive oxygen species in the response of barley to necrotrophic pathogens. Protoplasma 221, 137–143. doi:10.1007/s00709-002-0064-1PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arabi MIE, Jawhar M (2007) Barley reaction to Cochliobolus sativus based on detached first leaf. Australasian Plant Pathology 36, 475–477. doi:10.1071/AP07053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bach E, Christensen S, Dalgaard L, Larsen PO, Olsen CE (1979) Structures, properties and relationship to the aspergillomarasmines of toxins produced by Pyrenophora teres. Physiological Plant Pathology 14, 41–46. doi:10.1016/0048-4059(79)90023-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barrault G, Alali B, Petitprez M, Albertini L (1982) Contribution to the study of the toxic activity of Helminthosporium teres, a parasite on barley (Hordeum vulgare). Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 60, 330–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barreto ALH, Vasconcelos IM, Grangeiro TB, Melo VMM, Matos TE, Eloy YRG, Fernandes CF, Torres DC, Freire-Filho FR, Freire FCO, Oliveira JTA (2007) Infection process and host defense responses in compatible and incompatible interactions between cowpea (Vigna unguiculata) and Colletotrichum gloeosporioides. International Journal of Plant Sciences 168, 193–203. doi:10.1086/509608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Coyle PM, Cooke BM (1993) Scanning electron micrographs of barley leaves infected with Drechslera teres. The Mycologist 7, 109–111. doi:10.1016/S0269-915X(09)80065-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Deadman ML, Cooke BM (1986) A comparison of detached leaf, greenhouse and field experiments for screening barley cultivars to Drechslera teres. Irish Journal of Agricultural Research 25, 63–70.Google Scholar
  8. Dickson S, Schweiger P, Smith FA, Söderström B, Smith S (2003) Paired arbuscules in the Arum-type arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis with Linum usitatissimum. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 81, 457–463. doi:10.1139/b03-037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dushnicky LG, Ballance GM, Sumner MJ, MacGregor AW (1996) Penetration and infection of susceptible and resistant wheat cultivars by a necrosis toxin-producing isolate of Pyrenophora tritici-repentis. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De Phytopathologie 18, 392–402.Google Scholar
  10. Dushnicky LG, Ballance GM, Sumner MJ, MacGregor AW (1998) Detection of infection and host responses in susceptible and resistant wheat cultivars to a toxin-producing isolate of Pyrenophora tritici-repentis. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De Phytopathologie 20, 19–27.Google Scholar
  11. Friesen TL, Faris JD, Solomon PS, Oliver RP (2008) Host-specific toxins: effectors of necrotrophic pathogenicity. Cellular Microbiology 10, 1421–1428. doi:10.1111/j.1462-5822.2008.01153.xPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Friis P, Olsen CE, Møller BL (1991) Toxin production in Pyrenophora teres, the ascomycete causing the net-spot blotch disease of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). The Journal of Biological Chemistry 266, 13329–13335.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Gachomo EW, Dehne H-W, Steiner U (2006) Microscopic evidence for the hemibiotrophic nature of Diplocarpon rosae, cause of black spot disease of rose. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 69, 86–92. doi:10.1016/j.pmpp.2007.02.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Gupta S, Loughman R, Platz GJ, Lance RCM (2003) Resistance in cultivated barleys to Pyrenophora teres f. teres and prospects of its utilisation in marker identification and breeding. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 1379–1386. doi:10.1071/AR03022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hargreaves JA, Keon JPR (1983) The binding of isolated mesophyll cells from barley leaves to hyphae of Pyrenophora teres. Plant Cell Reports 2, 240–243. doi:10.1007/BF00269150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Keon JPR, Hargreaves JA (1983) A cytological study of the net blotch disease ofbarley caused by Pyrenophora teres. Physiological Plant Pathology 22, 321–329.Google Scholar
  17. Khan TN, Boyd WJR (1969) Environmentally induced variability in the host reaction of barley to net blotch. Australian Journal of Biological Sciences 22, 1237–1244.Google Scholar
  18. Leisova L, Minarikova V, Kucera L, Ovesna J (2006) Quantification of Pyrenophora teres in infected barley leaves using real-time PCR. Journal of Microbiological Methods 67, 446–455. doi:10.1016/j.mimet.2006. 04.018PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Liu GS, Kennedy R, Greenshields DL, Peng G, Forseille L, Selvaraj G, Wei YD (2007) Detached and attached Arabidopsis leaf assays reveal distinctive defense responses against hemibiotrophic Colletotrichum spp. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 20, 1308–1319. doi:10.1094/MPMI-20-10-1308PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Loughman R, Deverall BJ (1986) Infection of resistant and susceptible cultivars of wheat by Pyrenophora tritici-repentis. Plant Pathology 35, 443–450. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.1986.tb02041.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Newton AC, Thomas WTB (1993) Evaluation of sources of partial resistance to mildew in barley using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay and other assessment methods. Euphytica 66, 27–34. doi:10.1007/BF00023505CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Nukina M, Ikeda M, Sassa T (1980) Two new pyrenolides, fungal morphogenic substances produced by Pyrenophora teres (Diedicke) Drechsler. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 44, 2761–2762.Google Scholar
  23. Sarpeleh A, Wallwork H, Catcheside DEA, Tate ME, Able AJ (2007) Proteinaceous metabolites from Pyrenophora teres contribute to symptom development of barley net blotch. Phytopathology 97, 907–915. doi:10.1094/PHYTO-97-8-0907PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Sarpeleh A, Tate ME, Wallwork H, Catcheside D, Able AJ (2008a) Characterisation of low molecular weight phytotoxins isolated from Pyrenophora teres. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 73, 154–162. doi:10.1016/j.pmpp.2009.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Sarpeleh A, Wallwork H, Tate ME, Catcheside DEA, Able AJ (2008b) Initial characterisation of phytotoxic proteins isolated from Pyrenophora teres. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 72, 73–79. doi:10.1016/j.pmpp.2008.05.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Smedegård-Petersen V (1971) Pyrenophora teres f. maculata f. nov. and Pyrenophora teres f. teres on barley in Denmark. In ‘Yearbook of the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University (Copenhagen)’. pp. 124–144. (Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University: Copenhagen)Google Scholar
  27. Smedegård-Petersen V (1977) Isolation of two toxins produced by Pyrenophora teres and their significance in disease development of net-spot blotch of barley. Physiological Plant Pathology 10, 203–211. doi:10.1016/0048-4059(77)90024-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tekauz A (1985) A numerical scale to classify reactions of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De Phytopathologie 7, 181–183.Google Scholar
  29. Tekauz A (1986) Effect of plant age and leaf position on the reaction of barley to Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De Phytopathologie 8, 380–386.Google Scholar
  30. Tuohy JM, Jalli M, Cooke BM, O’Sullivan E (2006) Pathogenic variation in populations of Drechslera teres f. teres and D. teres f. maculata and differences in host cultivar responses. European Journal of Plant Pathology 116, 177–185. doi:10.1007/s10658-006-9001-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Van Caeseele L, Grumbles J (1979) Ultrastructure of the interaction between Pyrenophora teres and a susceptible barley host. Canadian Journal of Botany-Revue Canadienne De Botanique 57, 40–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weiergang I, Jørgensen HJL, Møller IM, Friis P, Smedegård-Petersen V (2002) Correlation between sensitivity of barley to Pyrenophora teres toxins and susceptibility to the fungus. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 60, 121–129. doi:10.1006/pmpp.2002.0384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams KJ (2003) The molecular genetics of disease resistance in barley. Australian Journal of Agricultural Research 54, 1065–1079. doi:10.1071/AR02219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams KJ, Smyl C, Lichon A, Wong KY, Wallwork H (2001) Development and use of an assay based on the polymerase chain reaction that differentiates the pathogens causing spot form and net form of net blotch of barley. Australasian Plant Pathology 30, 37–44. doi:10.1071/AP00063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xi K, Burnett PA, Turkington TK, Tekauz A, Helm JH (1999) Determining quantitative resistance of barley cultivars at the seedling stage to net blotch caused by Pyrenophora teres. Canadian Journal of Plant Pathology-Revue Canadienne De Phytopathologie 21, 284–290.Google Scholar
  36. Zadoks JC, Chang TT, Konzak CF (1974) A decimal code for the growth stages of cereals. Weed Research 14, 415–421. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3180.1974.tb01084.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Australasian Plant Pathology Society 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Agriculture, Food and WineThe University of AdelaideGlen OsmondAustralia

Personalised recommendations