Fungal Pathogenecity

Nafula Racheal
Bugema university
nafula.racheal@yahoo.com
 Differences between animals/plants
 Plants have no RAG (recombinant activating gene)-dependent
immune system
 No circulating immune cells – local recognition and response
infection
 Cellular communication via plasmodesmata
 sometimes co-opted by bacteria and viruses to move systemically
 Whole plant response – Systemic acquired resistance
 Plants must differentiate between pathogens and beneficial
symbionts (Rhizobium and mycorrhizal fungi)
 important in nutrient poor soil and/or as biocontrol against pathogens
 Triggers of SAR?
 Fungal pathogenicity on plants
 Fungal pathogens of plants include
opportunists, necrotrophs and biotrophs
 Resistance is seen at several levels
 Non-host resistance – durable, broad spectrum,
effective
 Passive – attachment/germination and preformed
chemical defenses
 Active – initial colonization, e. g. wall apposition
 “Hyperactive” HR response and apoptosis
 Papillae and wall appositions
 Callose is a -1,3-glucan polymer, different
than cellulose in the connections of the
sugars
 Papillae contain callose, phenolyics,
hydroxyproline rich (HPR) proteins
 Enhance cell wall mediated defense

 Part of the basal defense response ?

 In susceptible interactions may block / delay
haustorium development
 Fungal papillae

Celio, Mims and Richardson Can. J. Bot. 82: 421–429 (2004)

Cell wall modifications
 Hypersensitive death
 Triggered before or at
first cell penetration
 Multigenic
 Durable

www.moreheadplanetarium.org
www.plant.wageningen-ur.nl
 Apoptosis

Death program
initiation uses
signalling via MAP
kinase cascades

www.aber.ac.uk
 DNA ladders and TUNEL staining

Ryerson and Heath

Plant Cell 8,393
 ‘Host’ resistance
 Major gene
 Systemic acquired/induced
 ‘horizontal’
 Major gene resistance
 After basic compatibility has been established
 Plant resistance / host virulence

 Speed?
 Effectiveness?
 Durability?
Major gene resistance
 Gene for gene interactions
 Flor 1956  explain inheritance of pathogenicity in the flax rust fungus
Melampsora lini.
 Establishment of basic compatibility overcomes nonhost defense for one
pathogen/host combination
 Thereafter
Host R r
Pathogen A resist susc
a susc susc

 Pressure on host to detect pathogen leads to major gene resistance

 Seldom durable
 Often used for resistant crop varieties
 Pressure on pathogen to overcome/evade resistance
 Development of multiple resistance and avirulence genes
Guard hypothesis model of gene for
gene interactions
 R proteins physically interact with cellular targets of
effectors
 Recognition of effector-target complex or the
products of this interaction triggers defense signaling
 Arabidopsis RPM1 gene recognizes and triggers HR
when either of two Pseudomonas syringae effectors
(AvrB and AvrRpm1) are delivered to the plant cell
 Complex of proteins involved in defense signaling
 Plant defenses – post infection
 PR proteins
 Structurally diverse group of proteins induced under
pathogen attack or stress by many resistance pathways
 often antimicrobial or antifungal
 maybe downstream of SAR/SIRgnalling
 Defensins
 regulated by plant hormones ethylene and JA (not SA)
 structurally similar to insect defensins, such as drosomycin,
and antimicrobials from vertebrates
 Conserved strategy in response to microbial attack?
Chemical post infection plant defenses
 Phytoalexins
 Produced by healthy plant
cells adjacent to damage by
wounding or pathogens
 not made in biotrophic
interactions
 Usually low molecular Phoma Phoma
weight, hydrophobic virulent avirulent
 Roles mostly unclear
 Pressure on pathogen to Pedras and Okanga 2000
deotoxify Metabolism of analogs of the
phytoalexin brassinin by plant
 Gene for gene interaction pathogenic fungi CanJChem
can evolve 78:338
Systemic acquired/induced resistance
SIR/SAR/ISR
 usually broad spectrum Protection of soybean leaves against
Pseudomonas syringae pv. glycinea
 often associated with an
enhanced capacity to
mobilize infection-
induced, cellular defense
responses, via ‘priming’
 Inducers
 necrotizing attackers,
 nonpathogenic, root-
colonizing Pseudomonads, • Lower leaves treated with lactofen (not
 salicylate, jasmonate shown)
• 8d later upper leaves (image) were inoculated,
 ß-aminobutyric acid then incubated
(BABA)

www.oardc.ohio-state.edu/soydefense
MGR vs HR
 Integrated pest management
 sanitation
 crop rotation
 cultivation practices
 sowing date
 plant spacing
 resistant cultivars
 disease forecasting
 biological control
 chemical control
 IPM projected benefits
 Requirements
 preliminary analysis
 detailed but flexible planning
 Sprays may be fewer but more complex,
 with components aimed at variety of organisms, e.g. fungi
and insects.
 Overall
 reduced cost
 reduced chemical pesticide use and dependence
 Major targets are fungi and insects
Entomophthorales
 Used as biocontrol
agents
 Entomophaga aulicae
 Metarhizium anisopliae

 Beauvaria bassiana

 Cordyceps sinclairii
Entomophthora muscae
 Conidia attach
 Penetrate by enzymatic
digestion
 Growth in insect as
yeast or plasmodium or
hypha (sp dependent)
 Conidia form at
exoskeleton junctions
High host specificity
Metarhizium anisopliae
Spruce budworm in
North America

Grasshopper control
in Australia “Greenguard”
4 x 1010 spores/g
95% control
Effect on insect behaviour

 Infection can induce

positive phototropism
 Attack nervous
system?
 dying insects climb
grass stems and cling
there
 Improved spore
dispersal

www.bioimages.org.uk/
Fungus Saves HoneyBees By Killing Parasitic
Mites
WESLACO, Texas, October 21, 2004
 Roles for honeybees
 pollinate crops
 honey, beeswax
 pollen, royal jelly
 Varroa mites
 Bee parasites
 Not yet found in Saskatchewan
 Chemical control possible but not preferable
 Metarhizium anisopliae
 Established biocontrol fungus
 Affects mites but not bees