methyl jasmonate
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

1936
(FIVE YEARS 473)

H-INDEX

88
(FIVE YEARS 10)

2022 ◽  
Vol 177 ◽  
pp. 114482
Author(s):  
Rui Liu ◽  
Zirong Wang ◽  
Jinyu Zheng ◽  
Zhaojin Xu ◽  
Xue Tang ◽  
...  

2022 ◽  
Vol 184 ◽  
pp. 111760
Author(s):  
Xiaoya Tao ◽  
Qiong Wu ◽  
Jiayin Li ◽  
Suqing Huang ◽  
Luyun Cai ◽  
...  

BMC Genomics ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
J. S. Nantongo ◽  
B. M. Potts ◽  
T. Frickey ◽  
E. Telfer ◽  
H. Dungey ◽  
...  

Abstract Background Plants are attacked by diverse insect and mammalian herbivores and respond with different physical and chemical defences. Transcriptional changes underlie these phenotypic changes. Simulated herbivory has been used to study the transcriptional and other early regulation events of these plant responses. In this study, constitutive and induced transcriptional responses to artificial bark stripping are compared in the needles and the bark of Pinus radiata to the responses from application of the plant stressor, methyl jasmonate. The time progression of the responses was assessed over a 4-week period. Results Of the 6312 unique transcripts studied, 86.6% were differentially expressed between the needles and the bark prior to treatment. The most abundant constitutive transcripts were related to defence and photosynthesis and their expression did not differ between the needles and the bark. While no differential expression of transcripts were detected in the needles following bark stripping, in the bark this treatment caused an up-regulation and down-regulation of genes associated with primary and secondary metabolism. Methyl jasmonate treatment caused differential expression of transcripts in both the bark and the needles, with individual genes related to primary metabolism more responsive than those associated with secondary metabolism. The up-regulation of genes related to sugar break-down and the repression of genes related with photosynthesis, following both treatments was consistent with the strong down-regulation of sugars that has been observed in the same population. Relative to the control, the treatments caused a differential expression of genes involved in signalling, photosynthesis, carbohydrate and lipid metabolism as well as defence and water stress. However, non-overlapping transcripts were detected between the needles and the bark, between treatments and at different times of assessment. Methyl jasmonate induced more transcriptional responses in the bark than bark stripping, although the peak of expression following both treatments was detected 7 days post treatment application. The effects of bark stripping were localised, and no systemic changes were detected in the needles. Conclusion There are constitutive and induced differences in the needle and bark transcriptome of Pinus radiata. Some expression responses to bark stripping may differ from other biotic and abiotic stresses, which contributes to the understanding of plant molecular responses to diverse stresses. Whether the gene expression changes are heritable and how they differ between resistant and susceptible families identified in earlier studies needs further investigation.


2022 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yihe Jiang ◽  
Qi Zhu ◽  
Hua Yang ◽  
Tiantian Zhi ◽  
Chunmei Ren

Abstract Fumarylacetoacetate hydrolase (FAH) catalyzes the final step of Tyrosine (Tyr) degradation pathway essential to animals and the deficiency of FAH causes an inborn lethal disease. In plants, a role of this pathway was unknown until we found that mutation of Short-day Sensitive Cell Death1 (SSCD1), encoding Arabidopsis FAH, results in cell death under short day. Phenylalanine (Phe) could be converted to Tyr and then degraded in both animals and plants. Phe ingestion in animals worsens the disease caused by FAH defect. However, in this study we found that Phe represses cell death caused by FAH defect in plants. Phe treatment promoted chlorophyll biosynthesis and suppressed the up‑regulation of reactive oxygen species marker genes in the sscd1 mutant. Furthermore, the repression of sscd1 cell death by Phe could be reduced by α-aminooxi-β-phenylpropionic acid but increased by methyl jasmonate, which inhibits or activates Phe ammonia-lyase catalyzing the first step of phenylpropanoid pathway, respectively. In addition, we found that jasmonate signaling up‑regulates Phe ammonia-lyase 1 and mediates the methyl jasmonate enhanced repression of sscd1 cell death by Phe. These results uncovered the relation between chlorophyll biosynthesis, phenylpropanoid pathway and jasmonate signaling in regulating the cell death resulting from loss of FAH in plants.


Biology ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
pp. 84
Author(s):  
Luisa Amo ◽  
Anna Mrazova ◽  
Irene Saavedra ◽  
Katerina Sam

The tri-trophic interactions between plants, insects, and insect predators and parasitoids are often mediated by chemical cues. The attraction to herbivore-induced Plant Volatiles (HIPVs) has been well documented for arthropod predators and parasitoids, and more recently for insectivorous birds. The attraction to plant volatiles induced by the exogenous application of methyl jasmonate (MeJA), a phytohormone typically produced in response to an attack of chewing herbivores, has provided controversial results both in arthropod and avian predators. In this study, we examined whether potential differences in the composition of bouquets of volatiles produced by herbivore-induced and MeJA-treated Pyrenean oak trees (Quercus pyrenaica) were related to differential avian attraction, as results from a previous study suggested. Results showed that the overall emission of volatiles produced by MeJA-treated and herbivore-induced trees did not differ, and were higher than emissions of Control trees, although MeJA treatment showed a more significant reaction and released several specific compounds in contrast to herbivore-induced trees. These slight yet significant differences in the volatile composition may explain why avian predators were not so attracted to MeJA-treated trees, as observed in a previous study in this plant-herbivore system. Unfortunately, the lack of avian visits to the experimental trees in the current study did not allow us to confirm this result and points out the need to perform more robust predator studies.


2022 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chaymaa Riahi ◽  
Jhonn González-Rodríguez ◽  
Miquel Alonso-Valiente ◽  
Alberto Urbaneja ◽  
Meritxell Pérez-Hedo

Insect herbivory activates plant defense mechanisms and releases a blend of herbivore-induced plant volatiles (HIPVs). These volatile compounds may be involved in plant-plant communication and induce defense response in undamaged plants. In this work, we investigated whether the exposure of sweet pepper plants to HIPVs [(Z)-3-hexenol, (Z)-3-hexenyl acetate, (Z)-3-hexenyl propanoate, (Z)-3-hexenyl butanoate, hexyl butanoate, methyl salicylate and methyl jasmonate] activates the sweet pepper immune defense system. For this, healthy sweet pepper plants were individually exposed to the each of the above mentioned HIPVs over 48 h. The expression of jasmonic acid and salicylic acid related genes was quantified. Here, we show that all the tested volatiles induced plant defenses by upregulating the jasmonic acid and salicylic acid signaling pathway. Additionally, the response of Frankliniella occidentalis, a key sweet pepper pest, and Orius laevigatus, the main natural enemy of F. occidentalis, to HIPV-exposed sweet pepper plants were studied in a Y-tube olfactometer. Only plants exposed to (Z)-3-hexenyl propanoate and methyl salicylate repelled F. occidentalis whereas O. laevigatus showed a strong preference to plants exposed to (Z)-3-hexenol, (Z)-3-hexenyl propanoate, (Z)-3-hexenyl butanoate, methyl salicylate and methyl jasmonate. Our results show that HIPVs act as elicitors to sweet pepper plant defenses by enhancing defensive signaling pathways. We anticipate our results to be a starting point for integrating HIPVs-based approaches in sweet pepper pest management systems which may provide a sustainable strategy to manage insect pests in horticultural plants.


2022 ◽  
Vol 292 ◽  
pp. 110624
Author(s):  
Liuyi Pan ◽  
Xurui Chen ◽  
Wei Xu ◽  
Shangshu Fan ◽  
Tian Wan ◽  
...  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document