Reactions of Cytoplasm and Organelles in Relation to Host-Parasite Specificity

  • William R. Bushnell
Part of the NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series book series (NSSA, volume 10)


Cytoplasm and organelles of host and parasite are probably involved in most of the host-parasite interactions that determine specificity. Space does not permit a comprehensive treatment of this topic. Instead, two aspects of the involvement of cytoplasm and organelles in host-parasite specificity will be considered. First, the degree of compatibility between cytoplasm from unlike organisms will be discussed in an attempt to establish if host-parasite specificity might be related to cytoplasmic specificity. Second, several ways in which host cytoplasm responds to the approach and invagination by parasites will be described and evaluated with respect to the possible role of each response in specificity.


Powdery Mildew Slime Mold Crown Rust Host Cytoplasm Incompatibility Factor 
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.
    AIST, J.R. and ISRAEL, H.W. (1975). Papillae and penetration: cytological aspects of host responses to fungal attack. Proc. Am. Phytopath. Soc., 1, 132.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    BEGUERET, J. and BERNET, J. (1973). Proteolytic enzymes and protoplasmic incompatibility in Podospora anserina. Nature New Briol., 243, 94–96.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    BLAICH, R. and ESSER, K. (1971). The incompatibility relationships between geographical races of Podospora ansevina. V. Biochemical characterization of heterogenic incompatibility on cellular level. Molec. gen. Genetics, 111, 265 – 272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    BONNETT, H.T. and ERIKSSON, T. (1974). Transfer of algal chloroplasts into protoplasts of higher plants. Planta, 120, 71 – 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    BRACKER, C.E. and LITTLEFIELD, L.J. (1973). Structural concepts of host-pathogen interfaces. In: Fungal pathogenicity and the plant’s response. (Byrde, r.j.w. and cutting, c.v., Eds.), 159 – 318. Academic Press, London, New York.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    BUSHNELL, W.R. (1971). The haustorium of Erysiphe graminis: An experimental study by light microscopy. In: Morphological and biochemical events in plant-parasite interaction. (Akai, S. and Ouchi, S., Eds.), 229 – 254. The Phytopathological Society of Japan, Tokyo.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    BUSHNELL, W.R. (1972). Physiology of fungal haustoria. A. Rev. Phytopath., 10, 151 – 176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    BUSHNELL, W.R. and BERGQUIST, S.E. (1975). Aggregation of host cytoplasm and the Formation of papillae and haustoria in powdery mildew of barley. Phytopathology, 65, 310 – 318.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    CARLILE, M.J. (1972). The lethal interaction following Plasmodial fusion between two strains of the myxomycete. Physcarum polycephalum. J. gen. Microbiol., 71, 581 – 590.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    CARLILE, M.J. (1973). Cell fusion and somatic incompatibility in myxomycetes. Ber. dt. bot. Ges., 86, 123 – 139.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    CLARK, J. and COLLINS, O.R. (1973). Further studies on the genetics of plasmodial incompatibility in a Honduran isolate of Didymium iridis. Mycologia, 65, 507 – 518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    CORNER, E.J.H. (1935). Observations on resistance to powdery mildews. New Phytol., 34, 180 – 200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    EHRLICH, M.A. and EHRLICH, H.G. (1971). Fine structure of the host-parasite interfaces in mycoparasitism. A. Rev. Phytopath., 9, 155 – 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    EPHRUSSI, B. (1972). Hybridization of somatic cells. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 175 pp.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    ESSER, K. and KUENEN, R. (1967). Genetics of fungi. Translated by E. Steiner. Springer Verlag, Berlin, 500 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    FINCHAM, J.R.S. and DAY, P.R. (1965). Fungal genetics. Second edition. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford, 326 pp.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    HARDWICK, N.V., GREENWOOD, A.D. and WOOD, R.K.S. (1971). The fine structure of the haustorium of Uromyces appendiculatus in Phaseolus vulgaris. Can. J. Bot., 49, 383 – 390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    HEATH, M.C. (1971). Haustorial sheath formation in cowpea leaves immune to rust infection. Phytopathology, 61, 383 – 388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    KAO, K.N., CONSTABEL, F., MICHAYLUK, M.R. and GAMBORG, O.L. (1974). Plant protoplast fusion and growth of intergen-eric hybrid cells. Planta, 120, 215 – 227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    KARTHA, K.K., GAMBORG, O.L., CONSTABEL, F. and KAO, K.N. (1974). Fusion of rapeseed and soybean protoplasts and subsequent division of heterokaryocytes. Can. J. Bot., 52, 2435 – 2436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    KITAZAWA, K., INAGAKI, H. and TOMIYAMA, K. (1973). Cinephotomiorographic observations on the dynamic responses of protoplasm of a potato plant cell to infection by Phytoph-thora infestans. Phytopath. Z., 76, 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    LIN, M.R. and EDWARDS, H.H. (1974). Primary penetration process in powdery mildewed barley related to host cell age, cell type, and occurrence of basic staining material. New Phytol., 73, 131 – 137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    LING, H. and LING, M. (1974). Genetic control of somatic cell fusion in a myxomycete. Heredity, 32, 95 – 104.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    LING, H. and UPADHYAYA, K.C. (1974). Cytoplasmic incompatibility studies in the myxomycete Didymium iridis: Recovery and nuclear survival in heterokaryons. Am. J. Bot., 61, 598 – 603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MAHLBERG, P. (1972). Further observations on the phenomenon of secondary vacuolation in living cells. Am. J. Bot., 59, 172 – 179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    MAHLBERG, P.G., TURNER, F.R., WALKINSHAW, C. and VENKETESWARAN, S. (1974). Ultrastructural studies on plasma membrane related secondary vacuoles in cultured cells. Am. J. Bot., 61, 730 – 738.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    MCKEEN, W.E. and RIMMER, S.R. (1973). Initial penetration process in powdery mildew infection of susceptible barley leaves. Phytopathology, 63, 1049 – 1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    POTRYKUS, I. (1971). Intra and interspecific fusion of protoplasts from petals of Torenia baillonii and Torenia fournieri. Nature New Biol., 231, 57 – 58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    POTRYKUS, I. and HOFFMANN, F. (1973). Transplantation of nuclei into protoplasts of higher plants. Z. PflPhysiol., 69, 287 – 289.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    RUSSELL, T.E. and HALLIWELL, R.S. (1974). Response of cultured cells of systemic and local lesion tobacco hosts to microinjection with TMV. Phytopathology, 64, 1520 – 1526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    SELL, E.K. and KROOTH, R.S. (1972). Tabulation of somatic cell hybrids formed between lines of cultured cells. J. cell. Physiol., 80, 453 – 461.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    SMITH, G. (1900). The haustoria of the Erysipheae. Bot. Gaz., 29, 153 – 184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    STANBRIDGE, B., GAY, J.L. and WOOD, R.K.S. (1971). Gross and fine structural changes in Erysiphe graminis and barley before and during infection. In: Ecology of leaf surface micro-organisms. (preece, t.f. and Dickinson, c.h., Eds.), 367 – 379. Academic Press, New York and London.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    WILLIAMS, C.A. and WILSON, J.F. (1966). Cytoplasmic incompatibility reactions in Neurospora crassa. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 129, 853 – 863.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    WILLIAMS, C.A. and WILSON, J.F. (1968). Neurospora Newsl., 13, 12.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    WILSON, J. (1974). Neurospora NewsL, 21, 6.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    WILSON, J.F., GARNJOBST, L. and TATUM, E.L. (1961). Heterokaryon incompatibility in Neurospora crassa. Micro-injection studies. Am. J. Bot., 48, 299 – 305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1976

Authors and Affiliations

  • William R. Bushnell
    • 1
  1. 1.Cereal Rust Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service U.S. Department of AgricultureUniversity of MinnesotaSt. PaulUSA

Personalised recommendations