Ectomycorrhizins — symbiosis-specific or artifactual polypeptides from ectomycorrhizas?

Abstract

Fungal mycelium of the fly agaric (Amanita muscaria [L. ex Fr.] Hooker), and inoculated or noninoculated seedlings of Norway spruce (Picea abies [L.] Karst.) were grown aseptically under controlled conditions. In order to detect symbiosis-specific polypeptides (‘ectomycorrhizins’, see Hubert and Martin, 1988, New Phytol.110, 339–346) the protein patterns of (i) fungal mycelium, (ii) mycorrhizal, and (iii) non-mycorrhizal root tips were compared by means of one- and twodimensional electrophoresis on a microscale. Because of the sensitivity of these micromethods (50 and 200 ng of protein, respectively), single mycorrhizal root tips and even the minute quantities of extramatrical mycelium growing between the roots of inoculated plants could be analysed. Differences in the protein patterns of root tips could be shown within the root system of an individual plant (mycorrhizal as well as non-mycorrhizal). In addition, the protein pattern of fungal mycelium grown on a complex medium (malt extract and casein hydrolysate) differed from that of extramatrical mycelium collected from the mycorrhiza culture (pure mineral medium). Such differences in protein patterns are obviously due to the composition of the media and/or different developmental stages. Consequently, conventional analyses which use extracts of a large number of root tips, are not suitable for differentiating between these effects and symbiosis-specific differences in protein patterns. In order to detect ectomycorrhizins, it is suggested that roots and mycelium from individual, inoculated plants should be analysed. This approach eliminates the influence of differing media, and at the same time allows a correct discrimination between developmental and symbiosisspecific changes. In our gels we could only detect changes in spot intensity but could not detect any ectomycorrhizins or the phenomenon of polypeptide ‘cleansing’, which both characterize theEucalyptus-Pisolithus symbiosis (Martin and Hubert, 1991, Experientia47, 321–331). We thus suggest that these reported effects either are specific for theEucalyptus-Pisolithus symbiosis or simply represent artifacts. The latter point of view is strengthened by a comparison of the experimental approaches.