Induction and Suppression of the Hypersensitive Reaction Caused by Phytopathogenic Bacteria : Specific and Non-Specific Components

  • Luis Sequeira
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 10)


The development of simple, yet effective techniques to introduce bacterial cells into the intercellular spaces of plant leaves and the discovery that introduction of many incompatible phytopath-ogenic bacteria elicits the rapid cell collapse associated with a hypersensitive reaction (HR) have stimulated numerous investigations into the nature and specificity of this phenomenon (5, 12). Initial results provided the basis for the attractive hypothesis that the HR resulted from the interaction of a specific elicitor produced by the bacterium and a specific receptor site on the host cell (4). However, very little evidence has been presented for the existence of either the elicitor or the receptor site, and the mechanism responsible for cellular collapse has remained largely unexplained.


Hypersensitive Reaction Intercellular Space Electrolyte Leakage Tobacco Leave Protective Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    BOGERS, R.J. (1972). On the interaction of Agrobacterium tumefaciens with cells of Kalanchoë daigremontiana. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Pl. Pathogenic Bacteria (MAAS GEESTERANUS, H.P., Ed.). Wageningen, The Netherlands, 239 – 250.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    COOK, A.A. (1975). Effect of low concentrations of Xanthomonas vesicatoria infiltrated into pepper leaves. Phytopathology, 65, 487 – 489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    COOK, A.A. and STALL, R.E. (1971). Calcium suppression of electrolyte loss from pepper leaves inoculated with Xanthomonas vesicatoria. Phytopathology, 61, 484 – 487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    ERCOLANI, G.L. (1970). Bacterial canker of tomato. IV. The interaction between virulent and avirulent strains of Corynebacterium mrichiganense (E.F. Sm.) Jens. Phytopathol. Mediter., 9, 151 – 159.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    ERCOLANI, G.L. (1973). Two hypotheses on the aetiology of response of plants to phytopathogenic bacteria. J. gen. Microbiol., 75, 83 – 95.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    GARDNER, J.M. and KADO, C.I. (1972). Induction of the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco with specific high molecular weight substances derived from the osmotic shock fluid of Erwinia rubrifaciens. Phytopathology, 62, 759 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    GOODMAN, R.N. (1968). The hypersensitive reaction in tobacco: a reflection of changes in host permeability. Phytopathology, 58, 872 – 873.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    GOODMAN, R.N. (1971). Re-evaluation of the role of NH3 as the cause of the hypersensitive reaction. Phytopathology, 61, 893 (Abstr.).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    GOODMAN, R.N. and PLURAD, S.R. (1971). Ultrastructural changes in tobacco undergoing the hypersensitive reaction caused by plant pathogenic bacteria. Physiol. Pl. Path., 1, 11 – 16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    HANCHEY, P., PASTALKA, T. and NOVACKY, A. (1974). Ultrastructure of tobacco protected against the hypersensitive response. Proc. Am. Phytopath. Soc., 1, 74.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    HUANG, J. and GOODMAN, R.N. (1970). The relationship of phosphatidase activity to the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco induced by bacteria. Phytopathology, 60, 1020 – 1021.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    KLEMENT, Z. (1963). Methods for the rapid detection of the pathogenicity of phytopathogenic pseudomonads. Nature, Lond., 199, 299 – 300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    KLEMENT, J. (1972). Development of the hypersensitive reaction induced by plant pathogenic bacteria. In: Proc. 3rd Int. Conf. Pl. Pathogenic Bacteria, (MAAS GEESTERANUS, H.P., Ed.). Wageningen, The Netherlands, 157 – 164.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    KLEMENT, Z. and GOODMAN, R.N. (1967). The role of the living bacterial cell and induction time in the hypersensitive reaction of the tobacco plant. Phytopathology, 57, 322 – 323.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    LIPETZ, J. (1970). Wound-healing in higher plants. Int. Rev. Cytol., 27, 1 – 28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    LOVREKOVICH, L. and FARKAS, G.L. (1965). Induced protection against wildfire disease in tobacco leaves treated with heat-killed bacteria. Nature, Lond., 205, 823 – 824.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    LOVREKOVICH, L., LOVREKOVICH, H. and GOODMAN, R.N. (1970). Ammonia as a necrotoxin in the hypersensitive reaction caused by bacteria in tobacco leaves. Can. J. Bot., 48, 167 – 171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    LOVREKOVICH, L., LOVREKOVICH, H. and STAHMANN, M.A. (1968). The importance of peroxidase in the wildfire disease. Phytopathology, 58, 193 – 198.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    LOZANO, J.C. (1969). Host responses to different isolates of Pseudomonas solanacearum. M.S. Thesis, University of Wisconsin, Madison, 68 pp.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    LOZANO, J.C. and SEQUEIRA, L. (1970). Prevention of the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco leaves by heat-killed cells of Pseudomonas solanacearum. Phytopathology, 60, 875 – 879.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    MATILE, P. and WINKENBACH, F. (1971). Function of lysosomes and lysosomal enzymes in the senescing corolla of the morning glory (Ipomoea purpurea). J. exp. Bot., 23, 759 – 771.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    NEMETH, J., KLEMENT, Z. and FARKAS, G.L. (1969). An enzymological study of the hypersensitive reaction induced by Pseudomonas syringae in tobacco leaf tissues. Phytopath. Z., 65, 267 – 278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    NOVACKY, A. (1972). Suppression of the bacterially induced hypersensitive reaction by cytokinins. Physiol. Pl. Path., 2, 101 – 104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    NOVACKY, A., ACEDO, G. and GOODMAN, R.N. (1973). Prevention of bacterially induced hypersensitive reaction by living bacteria. Physiol. Pl. Path., 3, 133 – 136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    O’BRIEN, F. and WOOD, R.K.S. (1973). Role of ammonia in infection of Phaseolus vulgaris by Pseudomonas spp. Physiol. Pl. Path., 3, 315 – 326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    PITT, D. and COOMBES, C. (1968). The disruption of lysosomelike particles of Solanum tuberosum cells during infection by Phytophthora erythroseptica Pethybr. J. gen. Microbiol., 53, 197 – 204.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    RATHMELL, W.G. and SEQUEIRA, L. (1974). Soluble peroxidase in fluid from the intercellular spaces of tobacco leaves. Plant Physiol., Lancaster, 53, 317 – 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    RATHMELL, W.G. and SEQUEIRA, L. (1975). Induced resistance in tobacco leaves: the role of inhibitors of bacterial growth in the intercellular fluid. Physiol. Pl. Path., 5, 65 – 73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    RYAN, C.A. (1974). Assay and biochemical properties of the proteinase inhibitor-inducing factor, a wound hormone. Plant Physiol., 54, 328 – 332.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    SEQUEIRA, L. and AINSLIE, V. (1969). Bacterial cell-free preparations that induce or prevent the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco. XI Int. bot. Congr. (Abstr.), 195.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    SEQUEIRA, L., AIST, S. and AINSLIE, V. (1972). Prevention of the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco by proteinaceous constituents of Pseudomonas solanacearum. Phytopathology, 62, 536 – 542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SEQUEIRA, L. and HILL, L.M. (1974). Induced resistance in tobacco leaves: the growth of Pseudomonas solanacearum. in protected tissues. Physiol. Pl. Path., 4, 447 – 455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    STALL, R.E. and COOK, A.A. (1968). Inhibition of Xanthomonas Vesicatoria in extracts from hypersensitive and susceptible pepper leaves. Phytopathology, 58, 1584 – 1587.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    STALL, R.E. and COOK, S.A. (1973). Hypersensitivity as a defense mechanism against natural infection. Proc. 2nd Int. Congr. Pl. Pathol., Abstr. No. 0586.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    TURNER, J.G. and NOVACKY, A. (1974). The quantitative relation between plant and bacterial cells involved in the hypersensitive reaction. Phytopathology., 64, 885 – 890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    VARNS, J.L. and KUĆ, J. (1971). Suppression of rishitin and phytuberin accumulation and hypersensitive response in potato by compatible races of Phytophthora infestans. Phytopathology, 61, 178 – 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    WACEK, T.J. (1974). Isolation and characterization of bacterial fractions that induce resistance in tobacco leaves. Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Wisconsin, Madison, 97 pp.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    WACEK, T.J. and SEQUEIRA, L. (1973). The peptidoglycan of Pseudomonas solanacecrum: chemical composition and biological activity in relation to the hypersensitive reaction in tobacco. Physiol. Pl. Path., 3, 363 – 369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    WILSON, C.L. (1973). A lysosomal concept for plant pathology. A. Rev. Phytopath., 11, 247 – 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • Luis Sequeira
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyUniversity of WisconsinMadisonUSA

Personalised recommendations