Banner
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive
Current IssueEditorial BoardOnline First ArticlesArchive

Research Article

volume 40 issue 2 (june 2019) : 113-120,   Doi: 10.18805/ag.R-1858

Hypersensitive Responses in Plants

A
Ankita Thakur
S
Shalini Verma
V
Vedukola P Reddy
D
Deepika Sharma
1Department of Plant Pathology, Dr Yashwant Singh Parmar University of Horticulture and Forestry, Nauni Solan, Himachal Pradesh, India
Cite article:- Thakur Ankita, Verma Shalini, Reddy P Vedukola, Sharma Deepika (2019). Hypersensitive Responses in Plants. Agricultural Reviews. 40(2): 113-120. doi: 10.18805/ag.R-1858.

ABSTRACT

Hypersensitivity is a natural defense for plants in response to a variety of pathogens such as viruses, bacteria, fungi and is characterized by a programmed cell death (PCD) accompanied by an accumulation of toxic compounds within the dead cell. Hypersensitive response (HR) is considered a biochemical reaction rather than a structural defense mechanism but can be seen with the naked eye or with a microscope. There are two types of hypersensitive responses: structural and induced. PCD is seen in both structural as well as in induced hypersensitive response. PCD is extreme resistance shown by the plants in which it kills its cells (suicidal death), upon a perception of the pathogen to deprive it of nutritional supply and stops its growth. Cell death plays a central role in innate immune responses in both plants and animals. Apoptosis and autophagy are physiological processes and two forms of biochemical PCD. Induced hypersensitive response comes out when the plant recognizes specific pathogen-produced signal molecules known as elicitors. Recognition of elicitors by the host plants activates an army of biochemical reactions. These reactions include an oxidative burst of reactive oxygen species (ROS), alterations in plant cell wall also including cell wall immunity (CWI) and damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs), induction of phytoalexins and synthesis of PR proteins. These all, are comprised under the first line of defense of plants which come into action after recognition of conserved molecules characteristic of many microbes. These are called elicitors and are known as microbeassociated or pathogen-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs or PAMPs). The second line of defense of plants is the recognition of effectors through plant resistance gene products known as R genes, which result in effector-triggered immunity (ETI). This is supported by the gene for gene hypothesis. Avirulence gene encodes a protein which is specifically recognized by genotypes of the host plant harboring the matching resistance genes.

REFERENCES

  1. Agrios , G.N. (2005). Induced Biochemical Defences.Plant Pathology.5th ed. Elsevier Academic Press, USA. 903p.  ( Under fig. 4)
  2. Anonymous. (2018). https://plantcellbiology.masters.grkraj.org. 26/12/2018.
  3. Anonymous. (2018). www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. 25/12/2018.
  4. Ausubel, F. (2005). Are innate immune signalling pathways in plants and animals conserved? Nat. Immunol. 6, 973–979.
  5. Bagirova, S.F. (2007). Hypersenstivity.Comprehensive and Molecular Phytopathology: Studies in Plant Science, 247-63.
  6. Bedini, E., De Castro, C., Erbs, G., Mangoni, L., Dow, J. M. and Newman, M.A. (2005). Structure-dependent modulation of a pathogen response in plants by synthetic O-antigen polysaccharides. J. Am. Chem. Soc. 127.
  7. Bent, A.F. and MacKey D. (2007). Elicitors, effectors, and R genes: the new paradigm and a lifetime supply of questions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 45:399-436.
  8. Bigeard, J., Colcombet, J., and Hirt, H. (2014). Signalling Mechanisms in Pattern-Triggered Immunity (PTI). Molecular Plant 8: 521-539.
  9. Boller, T. and Felix, G. (2009). A renaissance of elicitors: perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 60:379–406.
  10. Bortner, C.D. and Cidlowski, J.A. (2003). Uncoupling Cell Shrinkage from Apoptosis Reveals Na+ Influx is required for Volume Loss during Programmed Cell Death. JBC Papers in Press. The laboratory of Signal Transduction. 34p.
  11. Dow, M., Newman, M.A. and von Roepenack, E. (2000). The induction and modulation of plant defense responses by bacterial lipopolysaccharides. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 38: 241–261.
  12. Dziarski, R. and Gupta, D. (2006). The peptidoglycan recognition proteins (PGRPs). Genome Biol. 7:232–245.
  13. Erbs, G. and Newman, M.A. (2012). The role of lipopolysaccharide and peptidoglycan, two glycosylated bacterial microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs), in plant innate immunity. Mol. Plant Pathol. 13:95–104.
  14. Flor, H.H. (1942). Inheritance of pathogenicity in Melampsora lini. Phytopathology 32: 653–669
  15. Gust, A., Biswas, R., Lenz, H. D., Rauhut, T., Ranf, S. and Kemmerling, B. (2007). Bacteria-derived peptidoglycans constitute pathogen-associated molecular patterns triggering innate immunity in Arabidopsis. J. Biol. Chem. 282.
  16. He, P., Shan, L., Lin, N.C., Martin, G.B., Kemmerling, B. and Nürnberger, T. (2006). Specific bacterial suppressors of MAMP signalling upstream of MAPKKK in Arabidopsis innate immunity. Cell 125:563-575.
  17. Jamir, Y., Guo, M., Oh, H. S., Petnicki-Ocwieja, T., Chen, S. and Tang, X., (2004). Identification of Pseudomonas syringae type III effectors that can suppress programmed cell death in plants and yeast. Plant J. 37:554-565
  18. Jeppesen, M.G., Navratil, T., Spremulli, L.L. and Nyborg, J. (2005). Crystal structure of the bovine mitochondrial elongation factor Tu.Ts complex. J. Biol. Chem. 280:5071–5081.
  19. Jones, J.D.G. and Dangl, J. L. (2006). The plant immune system. Nature 444: 323–329.
  20. Kamal, R., Gusain, Y.S., Kumar, V. and Sharma, A.K. (2015). Disease management through biological control agents: An eco-friendly and cost-effective approach for sustainable agriculture. Agricultural Review 36:37-45.
  21. Kawchuk, L., Hachey, J., Lynch, D. R., Klcsar, F., van Rooijen, G. and Waterer, D. R., (2001). Tomato Ve disease resistance genes encode cell surface-like receptors. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 98: 6511–6515.
  22. Kwon, S.I., and Park, O.K. (2008). Autophagy in Plants. Journal of Plant Biology51(5):313-320.
  23. Lindermayr, C. and Durner, J. (2015). Interplay of Reactive Oxygen Species and Nitric oxide: Nitric Oxide Coordinates Reactive Oxygen Species Homeostasis. Plant Physiology167:1209-1210.
  24. Lotze, M.T., Zeh, H.J., Rubartelli, A., Sparvero, L.J., Amoscato, A.A. and Washburn, N.R. (2007). The grateful dead: damage associated molecular pattern molecules and reduction/oxidation regulates immunity. Immunological Reviews. 220: 60–81.
  25. Mackey, D. and McFall, A.J. (2006). MAMPs and MIMPs: proposed classifications for inducers of innate immunity. Mol. Microbiol. 61:1365–1371
  26. Maekawa, T., Kufer, T.A. and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2011). NLR functions in plant and animal immune systems: so far and yet so close. Nat. Immunol. 12:817-826
  27. McDonald, C., Inohara, N. and Nuñez, G. (2005). Peptidoglycan signalling in innate immunity and inflammatory disease. J. Biol. Chem. 280.
  28. McGurl, B., Pearce, G., Orozco-Cardemas, M. and Ryan, C.A. (1992). Structure, expression, and antisese inhibition of the systemin precursor gene. Science 255:1570–1573.
  29. Moore, D., Robson, G.D., and Trinci, A.P.J. (2018). Fungi as pathogens of plants: Pre-formed and induced defence mechanisms in plants. 21stcentury guidebook to fungi, 2nd ed. 367-68.
  30. Narváez-Vásquez, J., Ryan, C.A. (2004). The cellular localization of prosystemin: a functional role for phloem parenchyma in systemic wound signaling. Planta 218:360–369.
  31. Newman, M.A., Daniels, M.J. and Dow J.M. (1995). Lipopolysaccharide from Xanthomonas campestris induces defense-related gene expression in Brassica campestris. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 8:778–780. 
  32. Newman, M.A., von Roepenack-Lahaye, E., Parr, A., Daniels, M.J. and Dow, J.M. (2002). Prior exposure to lipopolysaccharide potentiates expression of plant defenses in response to bacteria. Plant J. 29:487–495.
  33. Nguyen, H.P., Chakravarthy, S., Velásquez, A.C., McLane, H.L., Zeng, L., Nakayashiki, H. (2010). Methods to Study PAMP-triggered immunity using tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact 23:991–999.
  34. Nomura, K., DebRoy, S., Lee, Y.H., Pumplin, N., Jones, J. and He, S.Y. (2006). A bacterial virulence protein suppresses host innate immunity to cause plant disease. Science 313:220-223.
  35. Pearce, G., Strydom, D., Johnson, S. and Ryan, C.A. (1991). A polypeptide from tomato leaves induces wound-inducible proteinase inhibitor proteins. Science 253: 895–898.
  36. Rouxel, T., and Balesdent, M.H., (2010). Avirulance Genes. Encyclopedia of Life Sciences (ELS). John Wiley & Sons, Ltd: Chichester.1-13.
  37. Sarkar, A., Sinha, A., Sharma, B.K., and Singh, H.B., (2015). Plant Pathogen Interaction and Host Defense Responses. E-Manual on Improved Production Technologies in Vegetable Crops, Conference Paper. Banaras Hindu University. 246-249.
  38. Seong, S.Y. and Matzinger, P. (2004). Hydrophobicity: an ancient damage-associated molecular pattern that initiates innate immune responses. Nat. Immunol. 4:469–478.
  39. Silipo, A., Molinaro, A., Sturiale, L., Dow, J. M., Erbs, G., Lanzetta, R. (2005). The elicitation of plant innate immunity by lipooligosaccharide of Xanthomonas campestris. J. Biol. Chem. 280:33660–33668.
  40. Staskawicz, B.J., Dahlbeck, D. and Keen, N.T. (1984). Cloned avirulence gene of Pseudomonassyringae pv glycinea determines race-specific incompatibility on Glycine max (L.) Merr. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA 81:6024–6028.
  41. Surico, G. (2013). The concepts of plant pathogenicity, virulence/avirulence and effector proteins by a teacher of plant pathology. Phytopathologia Mediterranea 52 (3):399-417.
  42. van der Biezen, E.A. and Jones, J.D. (1998). Plant disease-resistance proteins and the gene-for-gene concept. Trends Biochem. Sci. 23: 454-456.
  43. Vanyushin, B.F., Bakeeva, L.E., Zamyatnina, V.A. and Aleksandrushkina, N.I. (2004). Apoptosis in plants: specific features of plant apoptotic cells and effect of various factors and agents. Int Rev Cytol.233:135-179. 
  44. Yamaguchi, Y. and Huffaker, A. (2011). Endogenous peptide elicitors in higher plants. Current opinion in Plant Biology. 14(4):351-7.
  45. Zipfel, C., Kunze, G., Chinchilla, D., Caniard, A., Jones, J.D.G. and Boller T.  (2006). Perception of the bacterial PAMP EF-Tu by the receptor EFR restricts Agrobacterium-mediated transformation. Cell 125: 749–760.
Published In
Agricultural Reviews
Article Metrics
Metrics Icon
0
Views
Citations
Reviewed By
Share Article
Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)