Microphenomics for Interactions of Barley with Fungal Pathogens

  • Dimitar Douchkov
  • Tobias Baum
  • Alexander Ihlow
  • Patrick Schweizer
  • Udo Seiffert


Current high-throughput plant phenotyping pipelines are mainly focused on quantitative assessment of macroscopic parameters. Such morphological or physiological parameters measured on entire plants or major plant parts are not well adapted to the accurate description of plant-pathogen interactions because plant pathogens are microorganisms causing only microscale changes in their hosts or non-hosts during the initial stages on infection, which often decide about susceptibility or resistance. This makes the use of microscopic phenomics techniques unavoidable. However, the high-throughput requirements of modern phenomics screens represent a considerable challenge to the available microscopic approaches and underlying instruments used to characterize plant-pathogen interactions. To meet this challenge we have developed a platform that combines high-throughput DNA cloning, single cell transformation protocols, and automated microscopy and phenotyping that we called “microphenomics”. It was used to address the function of genes in nonhost- and race-nonspecific host resistance of barley interacting with the powdery mildew fungus Blumeria graminis. More than 1,300 genes derived from plant or fungal genomes were tested by silencing and approximately 100 of them had a significant effect on the resistance or susceptibility to the pathogen. The chapter gives an overview on the current status of this microphenomics platform for very early and early stages of plant-pathogen interactions.


Powdery Mildew Hyphal Growth Massively Parallel Signature Sequencing RNAi Construct Transcript Regulation 
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.



We would like to tank to Aura Navarro-Quezada and Wolfgang Knogge from the Leibniz-Institute of Plant Biochemistry, Department of Stress and Developmental Biology, Weinberg 3, 06120 Halle (Saale), Germany for providing the R. secalis fluorescence microscopy images. We are especially grateful to Stefanie Lück and Gabriele Brantin from IPK for the excellent technical work. Work of own research was supported by IPK (to P.S.), the German Ministry of Education and Research BMBF (to P.S. and U.S.), and by BASF Plant Science GmbH (to P.S.).


  1. Baum T, Navarro-Quezada A, Knogge W et al (2011) HyphArea-Automated analysis of spatiotemporal fungal patterns. J Plant Physiol 168:72–78PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bauriegel E, Giebel A, Herppich WB (2011) Hyperspectral and chlorophyll fluorescence imaging to analyse the impact of fusarium culmorum on the photosynthetic integrity of infected wheat ears. Sensors 11:3765–3779PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beyer A, Hollunder J, Nasheuer HP et al (2004) Post-transcriptional expression regulation in the yeast Saccharomyces cerevisiae on a genomic scale. Mol Cell Proteomics 3:1083–1092PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhullar NK, Street K, Mackay M et al (2009) Unlocking wheat genetic resources for the molecular identification of previously undescribed functional alleles at the Pm3 resistance locus. P Natl Acad Sci USA 106:9519–9524CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boch J, Scholze H, Schornack S et al (2009) Breaking the code of DNA binding specificity of TAL-Type III effectors. Science 326:1509–1512PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brenner S, Johnson M, Bridgham J et al (2000) Gene expression analysis by massively parallel signature sequencing (MPSS) on microbead arrays. Nat Biotechnol 18:630–634PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Caldo RA, Nettleton D, Wise RP (2004) Interaction-dependent gene expression in Mla-specified response to barley powdery mildew. Plant Cell 16:2514–2528PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cermak T, Doyle EL, Christian M et al (2011) Efficient design and assembly of custom TALEN and other TAL effector-based constructs for DNA targeting (vol 39, pg e82, 2011). Nucleic Acids Res 39:7879–7879CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chinchilla D, Zipfel C, Robatzek S et al (2007) A flagellin-induced complex of the receptor FLS2 and BAK1 initiates plant defence. Nature 448:497–412PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Close, TJ; Bhat, PR; Lonardi, S; Wu, YH; Rostoks, N; Ramsay, L; Druka, A; Stein, N; Svensson, JT; Wanamaker, S; Bozdag, S; Roose, ML; Moscou, MJ; Chao, SAM; Varshney, RK; Szucs, P; Sato, K; Hayes, PM; Matthews, DE; Kleinhofs, A; Muehlbauer, GJ; DeYoung, J; Marshall, DF; Madishetty, K; Fenton, RD; Condamine, P; Graner, A; Waugh, R (2009) Development and implementation of high-throughput SNP genotyping in barley. BMC GENOMICS 10:582 Google Scholar
  11. Close TJ, Wanamaker SI, Caldo RA et al (2004) A new resource for cereal genomics: 22K barley GeneChip comes of age. Plant Physiol 134:960–968PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crouzet J, Trombik T, Fraysse AS et al (2006) Organization and function of the plant pleiotropic drug resistance ABC transporter family. Febs Letters 580:1123–1130PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dammer KH, Moller B, Rodemann B et al (2011) Detection of head blight (Fusarium ssp.) in winter wheat by color and multispectral image analyses. Crop Protection 30:420–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. De Coninck BMA, Amand O, Delaure SL et al (2012) The use of digital image analysis and real-time PCR fine-tunes bioassays for quantification of Cercospora leaf spot disease in sugar beet breeding. Plant Pathol 61:76–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dong WB, Nowara D, Schweizer P (2006) Protein polyubiquitination plays a role in basal host resistance of barley. Plant Cell 18:3321–3331PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Douchkov D, Nowara D, Zierold U et al (2005) A high-throughput gene-silencing system for the functional assessment of defense-related genes in barley epidermal cells. Mol Plant Microbe In 18:755–761CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Druka A, Franckowiak J, Lundqvist U et al (2011) Genetic dissection of barley morphology and development. Plant Physiol 155:617–627PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Duggal V, Jellis GJ, Hollins TW et al (2000) Resistance to powdery mildew in mutant lines of the susceptible wheat cultivar Hobbit ’sib’. Plant Pathol 49:468–476CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Errampalli D, Patton D, Castle L et al (1991) Embryonic Lethals and T-DNA Insertional Mutagenesis in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 3:149–157PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Eulgem T, Somssich IE (2007) Networks of WRKY transcription factors in defense signaling. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10:366–371PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Eulgem T, Rushton PJ, Robatzek S et al (2000) The WRKY superfamily of plant transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci 5:199–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Frommer WB, Chen LQ, Hou BH et al (2010) Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468:527–199PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gomez-Gomez L, Bauer Z, Boller T (2001) Both the extracellular leucine-rich repeat domain and the kinase activity of FLS2 are required for flagellin binding and signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 13:1155–1163PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Gonzalez R, Woods R, Eddins S (2004) Digital image processing using MATLAB. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar
  25. Gonzalez-Lamothe R, Tsitsigiannis DI, Ludwig AA et al (2006) The U-Box protein CMPG1 is required for efficient activation of defense mechanisms triggered by multiple resistance genes in tobacco and tomato. Plant Cell 18:1067–1083PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Heese A, Hann DR, Gimenez-Ibanez S et al (2007) The receptor-like kinase SERK3/BAK1 is a central regulator of innate immunity in plants. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:12217–12222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ihlow A, Schweizer P, Seiffert U (2008) A high-throughput screening system for barley/powdery mildew interactions based on automated analysis of light micrographs. BMC Plant Biol 8:6Google Scholar
  28. Iizasa E, Mitsutomi M, Nagano Y (2010) Direct Binding of a Plant LysM Receptor-like Kinase, LysM RLK1/CERK1, to Chitin in Vitro. J Biol Chem 285:2996–3004Google Scholar
  29. Jasinski M, Stukkens Y, Degand H et al (2001) A plant plasma membrane ATP binding cassette-type transporter is involved in antifungal terpenoid secretion. Plant Cell 13:1095–1107PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Kirsten S, Navarro-Quezada A, Penselin D et al (2012) Necrosis-Inducing Proteins of Rhynchosporium commune, Effectors in Quantitative Disease Resistance. Mol Plant Microbe In 25:1314–1325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kobae Y, Sekino T, Yoshioka H et al (2006) Loss of AtPDR8, a plasma membrane ABC transporter of Arabidopsis thaliana, causes hypersensitive cell death upon pathogen infection. Plant Cell Physiol 47:309–318PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kumlehn J, Serazetdinova L, Hensel G et al (2006) Genetic transformation of barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) via infection of androgenetic pollen cultures with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Plant Biotechnol J 4:251–261PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kuromori T, Takahashi S, Kondou Y et al (2009) Phenome analysis in plant species using loss-of-function and gain-of-function mutants. Plant Cell Physiol 50:1215–1231PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Lacomme C, Hrubikova K, Hein I (2003) Enhancement of virus-induced gene silencing through viral-based production of inverted-repeats. Plant J 34:543–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Lagudah ES, Krattinger SG, Spielmeyer W et al (2009) A putative ABC transporter confers durable resistance to multiple fungal pathogens in wheat. Science 323:1360–1363PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Li T, Liu B, Spalding MH et al (2012) High-efficiency TALEN-based gene editing produces disease-resistant rice. Nat Biotechnol 30:390–392PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lipka V, Gimenez-Ibanez S, Hann DR et al (2009) AvrPtoB targets the LysM receptor kinase CERK1 to promote bacterial virulence on plants. Curr Biol 19:423–429PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lipka V, Petutschnig EK, Jones AME et al (2010) The lysin motif receptor-like kinase (LysM-RLK) CERK1 is a major chitin-binding protein in Arabidopsis thaliana and subject to chitin-induced phosphorylation. J Biol Chem 285:28902–28911PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lu D, Wu S, He P et al (2010) Phosphorylation of receptor-like cytoplasmic kinases by bacterial flagellin. Plant Signal Behav 5:598–600Google Scholar
  40. Maeda I, Kohara Y, Yamamoto M et al (2001) Large-scale analysis of gene function in Caenorhabditis elegans by high-throughput RNAi. Curr Biol 11:171–176PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mahlein AK, Oerke EC, Steiner U et al (2012a) Recent advances in sensing plant diseases for precision crop protection. Eur J Plant Pathol 133:197–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mahlein AK, Steiner U, Hillnhutter C et al (2012b) Hyperspectral imaging for small-scale analysis of symptoms caused by different sugar beet diseases. Plant Methods 8:3Google Scholar
  43. Martinoia E, Klein M, Geisler M et al (2002) Multifunctionality of plant ABC transporters - more than just detoxifiers. Planta 214:345–355PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Matsuda Y, Toyoda H, Morita M et al (1994) A novel method for In Situ hybridization in fungal cells based on pricking micro–injection of photobiotin labelled probes. J Phytopathol 141:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Mayer KFX, Martis M, Hedley PE et al (2011) Unlocking the barley genome by chromosomal and comparative genomics. The Plant Cell Online 23:1249–1263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Mayer KFX, Waugh R, Langridge P et al (2012) A physical, genetic and functional sequence assembly of the barley genome. Nature 491:711–716PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Mazzucotelli E, Belloni S, Marone D et al (2006) The e3 ubiquitin ligase gene family in plants: regulation by degradation. Curr Genomics 7:509–522PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Nowara D, Gay A, Lacomme C et al (2010) HIGS: host-induced gene silencing in the obligate biotrophic fungal pathogen Blumeria graminis. Plant Cell 22:3130–3141PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ouchi S, Oku H, Hibino C et al (1974) Induction of accessibility and resistance in leaves of barley by some races of Erysiphe graminis. J Phytopathol 79:24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Panstruga R, Schulze-Lefert P (2002) Live and let live: insights into powdery mildew disease and resistance. Mol Plant Pathol 3:495–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pedreno MA, Almagro L, Ros LVG et al (2009) Class III peroxidases in plant defence reactions. J Exp Bot 60:377–390PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Peressotti E, Duchene E, Merdinoglu D et al (2011) A semi-automatic non-destructive method to quantify grapevine downy mildew sporulation. J Microbiol Meth 84:265–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reynolds MP, Borlaug NE (2006) Impacts of breeding on international collaborative wheat improvement. J Agr Sci 144:3–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Rushton PJ, Somssich IE, Ringler P et al (2010) WRKY transcription factors. Trends Plant Sci 15:247–258PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schweizer P, Stein N (2011) Large-scale data integration reveals colocalization of gene functional groups with meta-QTL for multiple disease resistance in barley. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 24:1492–1501PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schweizer P, Gees R, Mosinger E (1993) Effect of jasmonic acid on the interaction of Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) with the powdery mildew Erysiphe graminis f. sp. hordei. Plant Physiol 102:503–511PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Schweizer P, Christoffel A, Dudler R (1999) Transient expression of members of the germin-like gene family in epidermal cells of wheat confers disease resistance. Plant J 20:540–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schweizer P, Pokorny J, Schulze-Lefert P et al (2000) Double-stranded RNA interferes with gene function at the single-cell level in cereals. Plant J 24:895–903PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Seiffert U, Schweizer P (2005) A pattern recognition tool for quantitative analysis of in planta hyphal growth of powdery mildew fungi. Mol Plant Microbe In 18:906–912Google Scholar
  60. Shen LH, Gong J, Caldo RA et al (2005) BarleyBase—an expression profiling database for plant genornics. Nucleic Acids Res 33:D614–D618PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Shibuya N, Miya A, Albert P et al (2007) CERK1, a LysM receptor kinase, is essential for chitin elicitor signaling in Arabidopsis. P Natl Acad Sci USA 104:19613–19618CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Shirasu K, Trujillo M, Ichimura K et al (2008) Negative regulation of PAMP-triggered immunity by an E3 ubiquitin ligase triplet in Arabidopsis. Curr Biol 18:1396–1401PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Shiu SH, Bleecker AB (2003) Expansion of the receptor-like kinase/Pelle gene family and receptor-like proteins in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 132:530–543PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Shiu SH, Lehti-Shiu MD, Zou C et al (2009) evolutionary history and stress regulation of plant receptor-like kinase/pelle genes. Plant Physiol 150:12–26PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Slovakova L (1991) Induced resistance of barley plants against powdery mildew (Erysiphe graminis f.sp. hordei Marchal).1. Influence of inducers on primary infection. Biologia 46:737–744Google Scholar
  66. Song WY, Wang GL, Chen LL et al (1995) A receptor kinase-like protein encoded by the rice disease resistance gene, Xa21. Science 270:1804–1806PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stein M, Dittgen J, Sanchez-Rodriguez C et al (2006) Arabidopsis PEN3/PDR8, an ATP binding cassette transporter, contributes to nonhost resistance to inappropriate pathogens that enter by direct penetration. Plant Cell 18:731–746PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Stenzel K, Steiner U, Schonbeck F (1985) Effect of induced resistance on the efficiency of powdery mildew haustoria in wheat and barley. Physiol Plant Pathol 27:357–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tingay S, McElroy D, Kalla R et al (1997) Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated barley transformation. Plant J 11:1369–1376CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Trujillo M, Shirasu K (2010) Ubiquitination in plant immunity. Curr Opin Plant Biol 13:402–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Velculescu VE, Zhang L, Vogelstein B et al (1995) Serial analysis of gene-expression. Science 270:484–487PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Wang GL, Song WY, Ruan DL et al (1996) The cloned gene, Xa21, confers resistance to multiple Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae isolates in transgenic plants. Mol Plant Microbe In 9:850–855CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Wang L, Li PH, Brutnell TP (2010) Exploring plant transcriptomes using ultra high-throughput sequencing. Brief Funct Genomics 9:118–128PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Warringer J, Ericson E, Fernandez L et al (2003) Yeast phenomics on a genome-wide scale. Yeast 20:S338–S338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wielopolska A, Townley H, Moore I et al (2005) A high-throughput inducible RNAi vector for plants. Plant Biotechnol J 3:583–590PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wijekoon CP, Goodwin PH, Hsiang T (2008) Quantifying fungal infection of plant leaves by digital image analysis using Scion Image software. J Microbiol Meth 74:94–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wise R, Caldo R, Hong L et al (2006) PLEXdb: a unifited expression prolfiling database for plants and plant pathogens. Phytopathology 96:S161–S161Google Scholar
  78. Wise RP, Caldo RA, Hong L et al (2007) Barleybase/PLEXdb. A unified expression profiling database for plants and plant pathogens. Methods Mol Biol 406:347–363PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Wise RP, Lauter N, Szabo LJ et al (2009) Genomics of biotic interactions in the Triticeae. Genetics and genomics of the triticeae. C. F. G. J. muehlbauer. Springer 7:559–589Google Scholar
  80. Yang CW, Gonzalez-Lamothe R, Ewan RA et al (2006) The E3 ubiquitin ligase activity of Arabidopsis PLANT U-BOX17 and its functional tobacco homolog ACRE276 are required for cell death and defense. Plant Cell 18:1084–1098PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Yazaki K, Shitan N, Sugiyama A et al (2009) Cell and molecular biology of ATP-binding cassette proteins in plants. Int Rev Cell Mol Biol 276:263–299PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zellerhoff N, Himmelbach A, Dong WB et al (2010) Nonhost resistance of barley to different fungal pathogens is associated with largely distinct, quantitative transcriptional responses. Plant Physiol 152:2053–2066PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Zhang HN, Sreenivasulu N, Weschke W et al (2004) Large-scale analysis of the barley transcriptome based on expressed sequence tags. Plant J 40:276–290PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Zhang J, Li W, Xiang T et al (2010) Receptor-like cytoplasmic kinases integrate signaling from multiple plant immune receptors and are targeted by a Pseudomonas syringae effector. Cell Host Microbe 7:290–301PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Zhao T, Palotta M, Langridge P et al (2006) Mapped Ds/T-DNA launch pads for functional genomics in barley. Plant J 47:811–826PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Zhu LH, Gan QA, Bai H et al (2011) Transcriptional characteristics of xa21-mediated defense responses in rice. J Integr Plant Biol 53:300–311PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Zierold U, Scholz U, Schweizer P (2005) Transcriptome analysis of mlo-mediated resistance in the epidermis of barley. Mol Plant Pathol 6:139–151PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Zipfel C, Kunze G, Chinchilla D et al (2006) Perception of the bacterial PAMP EF-Tu by the receptor EFR restricts Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Cell 125:749–760PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dimitar Douchkov
    • 1
  • Tobias Baum
    • 2
  • Alexander Ihlow
    • 3
  • Patrick Schweizer
    • 1
  • Udo Seiffert
    • 2
  1. 1.Leibniz-Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research (IPK), Pathogen-Stress GenomicsGaterslebenGermany
  2. 2.Fraunhofer-Institute for Factory Operation and Automation (IFF), Biosystems EngineeringMagdeburgGermany
  3. 3.Ilmenau University of Technology, Institute for Information TechnologyIlmenauGermany

Personalised recommendations