Cereal Research Communications

, Volume 37, Issue 3, pp 399–408 | Cite as

Accumulation of H2O2 and changes in activities of antioxidative enzymes and β-1,3-glucanase in barley and meadow fescue leaves attacked by Bipolaris sorokiniana

  • A. Płażek
  • A. Skoczowski
  • K. Hura
  • M. Libik
  • B. BarnaEmail author


The effects of Bipolaris sorokiniana inoculation on accumulation of hydrogen peroxide and changes in the activities of superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), non-specific peroxidase (PX) and β-1,3-glucanase enzymes in leaves of differentially resistant spring barley and meadow fescue were investigated in this study. Hydrogen peroxide accumulated slightly in inoculated barley leaves 24 hours after inoculation, and its accumulation after 48 hours of pathogenesis remained week around sites of infection. In leaves of fescue, which is more resistant to B. sorokiniana, accumulation of H2O2 was faster and stronger in comparison to barley. A slight increase in SOD activity was observed only in infected fescue. Catalase activity in infected barely leaves decreased significantly 48 hours after inoculation, while in fescue-infected plants CAT activity, following a slight decrease, remained similar to the control values. PX activity was considerable lower in inoculated barley leaves after 6 hours, but at 24 and 48 hours after inoculation its activity increased significantly compared to the control. In inoculated fescue leaves activity of PX was higher at 6 and 24 hours compared to the control, while at 48 hours PX activity was strongly inhibited. β-1,3-Glucanase activity in inoculated barley plants did not differ from that of the control, while in infected fescue leaves it increased significantly 48 hours after inoculation. Based on the results, we suggest that the strong accumulation of H2O2, changes in antioxidant levels, together with the significant increase of β-1,3-Glucanase activity in infected fescue leaves, plays an important role in fescue’s greater resistance to B. sorokiniana.


B. sorokiniana catalase reactive oxygens meadow fescue peroxidase resistance SOD spring barley 







hypersensitive response


nitroblue tetrazolium


potato dextrose agar


non-specific peroxidase


superoxide dismutase


reactive oxygen species






Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Aebi, H. 1984. Catalase in vitro. Meth. Enzymol. 105:121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Anuratha, C.S., Zen, K.C., Cole, K.C., Mew, T., Muthukrishnan, S. 1996. Induction of chitinase and β -1,3-glucanases in Rhizoctonia solani — infected rice plants: Isolation of an infection-related chitinase cDNA clone. Physiol. Plant. 97:39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Apel, K., Hirt, H. 2004. Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism, oxidative stress and signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 55:373–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barna, B., Fodor, J., Pogány, M., Király, Z. 2003. Role of reactive oxygen species and antioxidants in plant disease resistance. Pest Manag. Sci. 59:459–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beauchamp, C., Fridovich, I. 1971. Superoxide dismutase: Improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 44:276–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benhamu, N., Broglie, K., Broglie, R., Chet, I. 1993. Antifungal effect of bean endochitinase on Rhizoctonia solani: Ultrastructure changes and cytochemical aspects of chitin breakdown. Can. J. Microbiol. 39:318–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bestwick, C.S., Brown, I.R., Mansfield, J.W. 1998. Localized changes in peroxidase activity accompany hydrogen peroxide generation during the development of a nonhost hypersensitive reaction in lettuce. Plant Physiol. 118:1067–1078.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolwell, G.P., Bindschedler, L.V., Blee, K., Butt, V.S., Davies, D.R., Gardner, S.L., Gerrish, C., Minibayeva, F. 2002. The apoplastic oxidative burst in response to biotic stress in plants: A three-component system. J. Exp. Bot. 53:1367–1376.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Bradford, M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantification of microgram quantitaties of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal. Biochem. 72:248–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Fodor, J., Gullner, G., Ádám, A.L., Barna, B., Kőmíves, T., Király, Z. 1997. Local and systemic responses of antioxidants to tobacco mosaic virus infection and to salicylic acid in tobacco: Role in systemic acquired resistance. Plant Physiol. 114:1443–1451.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gönner, M., Schlösser, E. 1993. Oxidative stress in interaction between Avena sativa L. and Drechslera spp. Physiol. Molec. Plant Pathol. 42:221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hammond-Kosack, K.E., Jones, J. 1996. Resistance gene-dependent plant defense response. Plant Cell 8:1773–1791.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Jongedijk, E., Tigelaar, H., Roekel van, J.S.C., Bres-Vloemans, S.A., Dekker, I., Elzen van der, P.J.M. Cornelissen, B.J.C., Melchers, L.S. 1995. Synergistic activity of chitinases and β -1,3-glucanases enhances fungal resistance in transgenic tomato plants. Euphytica 85:173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Király, Z., El-Zahaby, H., Galal, A., Abdou, S., Ádám, A., Barna, B., Klement, Z. 1993. Effect of oxy free radicals on plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi and on some plant diseases. In: Mózsik, Gy. Emerit, I., Fehér, J., Matkovics, B., Vincze, Á. (eds), Oxygen Free Radicals and Scavengers in the Natural Sciences. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, pp. 9–19.Google Scholar
  15. Kumar, J., Schäfer, P., Hückelhoven, R., Langen, G., Baltruschat, H., Stein, E., Nagarajan, S., Kogel, K.-H. 2002. Bipolaris sorokiniana, a cereal pathogen of global concern: Cytological and molecular approaches towards better control. Mol. Plant Pathol. 3:185–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Laemmli, U.K. 1970. Cleavage of structural proteins during the assembly of the head of bacteriophage T4. Nature 227:680–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lamb, C., Dixon, R.A. 1997. The oxidative burst in plant disease resistance. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Molec. Biol. 48:251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Lintle, M., van der Westhuizen, A.J. 2002. Glycoproteins from Russian wheat aphid infested wheat induce defence responses. Z. Naturforsch. 57:867–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. van Loon, L.C., Rep, M., Pieterse, C.M. 2006. Significance of inducible defense-related proteins in infected plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 44:135–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Mauch, F., Mauch-Mani, B., Boller, T. 1988. Antifungal hydrolases in pea tissue II. Inhibition of fungal growth by combinations of chitinase and β -1,3-glucanase. Plant Physiol. 88:936–942.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Mehdy, M.C. 1994. Active oxygen species in plant defense against pathogens. Plant Physiol. 105:467–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Mittler, R. 2002. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci. 7:405–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nelson, N. 1944. A photometric adaptation of the Somogyi method for the determination of glucose. J. Biol. Chem. 153:375–380.Google Scholar
  24. Płażek, A., Dubas, E. 2005. Activation of phenylpropanoid pathway and catalase in leaves of barley and meadow fescue infected by Bipolaris sorokiniana (Sacc.) Shoem. In: Zwierzykowski, Z., Kosmala, A. (eds), Recent Advances in Genetic and Breeding of the Grasses. Institute of Plant Genetics, Polish Academy of Sciences, Poznañ, Poland; Centre of Excellence in Plant Agrobiology and Molecular Genetics, pp. 197–202.Google Scholar
  25. Pıażek, A., Rapacz, M. 2000. The intensity of respiration and heat emission from seedlings of Festuca pratensis (Hud.) and Hordeum vulgare L. during pathogenesis caused by Bipolaris sorokiniana (Sacc.) Shoem. Acta Physiol. Plant. 22:25–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pıażek, A., Żur, I. 2003. Cold-induced plant resistance to necrotrophic pathogens and antioxidant enzyme activities and cell membrane permeability. Plant Sci. 164:1019–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Profotová, B., Burketová, L., Valentová, O. 2007. Chitinase isozymes induced by TYMV and Leptosphaeria maculans during compatible and incompatible interaction with Brassica napus. Biol. Plant. 51:507–513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ryan, C.A. 1988. Oligosaccharides as recognition signals for the expression of defensive genes in plants. Biochem. 27:8879–8883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Somogyi, M. 1952. Notes of sugar determination. J. Biol. Chem. 195:19–23.Google Scholar
  30. Stintzi, A., Heitz, T., Prasad, V., Wiedemann-Merdinoglu, S., Kauffmann, S., Geoffroy, P., Legrand, M., Fritig, B. 1993. Plant “pathogenesis-related” proteins and their role in defense against pathogens. Biochimie 75:687–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Thordal-Christensen, H., Zhang, Z., Wei, Y., Collinge, D.B. 1997. Subcellular localization of H 2 O 2 in plants. H 2 O 2 accumulation in papillae and hypersensitive response during the barley — powdery mildew interaction. Plant J. 11:1187–1194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Vranová, E., Inzé, D., Van Breusegem, F. 2002. Signal transduction during oxidative stress. J. Exp. Bot. 53:1227–1236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, Y., Kausch, A.P., Chandlee, J.M., Luo, H., Ruemmele, B.A., Browning, M., Jacksen, N., Goldsmith, M.R. 2003. Co-transfer and expression of chitinase, glucanase, and bar genes in creeping bentgrass for conferring fungal disease resistance. Plant Sci. 165:497–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • A. Płażek
    • 1
  • A. Skoczowski
    • 2
  • K. Hura
    • 1
  • M. Libik
    • 2
  • B. Barna
    • 3
    Email author
  1. 1.Department of Plant Physiology, Faculty of AgricultureAgricultural University of KrakowKrakówPoland
  2. 2.The Franciszek Górski Institute of Plant PhysiologyPolish Academy of SciencesKrakówPoland
  3. 3.Plant Protection InstituteHungarian Academy of SciencesBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations