pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Comparative transcriptional profiling of orange fruit in response to the biocontrol yeast Kloeckera apiculata and its active compounds - PubMed

  • ️Fri Jan 01 2016

Comparative transcriptional profiling of orange fruit in response to the biocontrol yeast Kloeckera apiculata and its active compounds

Pu Liu et al. BMC Genomics. 2016.

Abstract

Background: The yeast Kloeckera apiculata strain 34-9 is an antagonist that shows biological control activity against the postharvest fungal pathogens of citrus. An antifungal compound, 2-phenylethanol (PEA), has been identified from the extract of K. apiculata. To better understand the molecular processes underlying the response of citrus fruit tissue to K. apiculata, the extract and PEA, microarray analyses were performed on navel oranges using an Affymetrix Citrus GeneChip.

Results: As many as 801, 339 and 608 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) were identified after the application of K. apiculata, the extract and PEA, respectively. In general, K. apiculata induced the expression of defence-related genes. In addition to chitinase and β-1,3-glucanase, genes involved in ethylene (ET), jasmonic acid (JA), calcium signalling, MAPK signalling and phenylalanine metabolism were induced. In contrast, monodehydroascorbate reductase, superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD) and carotenoid biosynthesis genes were down-regulated. The expression profiles for the extract- and PEA-treated samples were similar to that found for yeast (sharing 57.4 % DEGs), with a significant increase in the transcript levels of defence-related genes.

Conclusion: This study provides a global picture of the gene expression changes in navel oranges after the application of the antagonist yeast K. apiculata, its extract and PEA. The interpretation of the DEGs revealed new insight into the molecular processes that regulate the defence responses in orange tissue.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1

Number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in citrus after statistical analysis. Venn diagram shows the number of up-regulated and down-regulated genes that are expressed in common or in special between K. apiculata, 2-phenylethanol (PEA) and the extract treatment

Fig. 2
Fig. 2

Functional categorization of global pattern of gene expression in citrus in response to different treatment based on GO annotation

Fig. 3
Fig. 3

MapManBin analyses of the common or in special up-regulated and down-regulated genes in citrus between K. apiculata, PEA and the extract treatment

Fig. 4
Fig. 4

Cluster analysis of the expression profiles of resistance-related differentially expressed genes in citrus by MeV (

http://www.tm4.org/mev.html

). Each column represents a sample, and each row represents a single gene. The diagram was generated using log2-transformed ratio values, and colours indicate relative signal intensities. Genes down-regulated in the treatment compared to control are depicted in green, and up-regulated genes are depicted in red

Fig. 5
Fig. 5

Verification of the microarray results by qRT-PCR. Black bar: qRT-PCR results for the genes. Grey bar: microarray data for the genes. Each qRT-PCR reaction was carried out in triplicate for three repeats. Columns and bars represent the means and standard error (n = 3) respectively

Fig. 6
Fig. 6

PR protein activity and polyamine and H2O2 content between K. apiculata, PEA and the extract treatment. a Chitinase activity; (b): β-1,3-glucanase activity; (c): H2O2 content; (d-f): polyamines content. The results in all the histograms are expressed as means ± standard errors. Mean values for different treatments at each time point are labelled with different letters to indicate significant differences at the level P < 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple range test

Fig. 7
Fig. 7

Lignin content between K. apiculata, PEA and the extract treatment. The results in all the histograms are expressed as means ± standard errors. Mean values for different treatments at each time point are labelled with different letters to indicate significant differences at the level P < 0.05 according to Duncan’s multiple range test

Fig. 8
Fig. 8

Overview of the major metabolic pathways involved in the defence response, as suggested by the interpretation of the GO and KEGG. The genes are designated as ID number from Citrus GeneChip, and the detailed gene information can be viewed in Additional file 1: Table S1. JA: jasmonic acid, ABA: abscisic acid, ET: ethylene, ROS: reactive oxygen species, LOX: lipoxygenase, HPL: hydroperoxide lyase, L-AA: L-ascorbic acid

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Janisiewicz WJ, Korsten L. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2002;40:411–41. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.40.120401.130158. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Droby S, Wisniewski M, Macarisin D, Wilson C. Twenty years of postharvest biocontrol research: is it time for a new paradigm? Postharvest Biol Technol. 2009;52:137–45. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.11.009. - DOI
    1. Sharma RR, Singh D, Singh R. Biological control of postharvest diseases of fruits and vegetables by microbial antagonists: a review. Biol Control. 2009;50:205–21. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.05.001. - DOI
    1. Jamalizadeh M, Etebarian HR, Aminian H, Alizadeh A. A review of mechanisms of action of biological control organisms against post-harvest fruit spoilage. EPPO Bulletin. 2011;41:65–71. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2338.2011.02438.x. - DOI
    1. Long CA, Zhang W, Deng BX. Biological control of Penicillium italicum of citrus and Botrytis cinerea of grape by strain 34–9 of Kloeckera apiculata. Eur Food Res Technol. 2005;221:197–201. doi: 10.1007/s00217-005-1199-z. - DOI

Publication types

MeSH terms

Substances