Paper · 2016 · Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions

PvPGIP2 Accumulation in Specific Floral Tissues But Not in the Endosperm Limits Fusarium graminearum Infection in Wheat

Silvio Tundo; Michela Janni; Ilaria Moscetti; et al.

3
claims
8
verbatim quotes
19
citations
1
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Fusarium head blight (FHB) caused by Fusarium graminearum is one of the most destructive fungal diseases of wheat worldwide. The pathogen infects the spike at flowering time and causes severe yield losses, deterioration of grain quality, and accumulation of mycotoxins. The understanding of the precise means of pathogen entry and colonization of floral tissue is crucial to providing effective protection against FHB. Polygalacturonase (PG) inhibiting proteins (PGIPs) are cell-wall proteins that inhibit the activity of PGs, a class of pectin-depolymerizing enzymes secreted by microbial pathogens, including Fusarium spp. The constitutive expression of a bean PGIP (PvPGIP2) limits FHB symptoms and reduces mycotoxin accumulation in wheat grain. To better understand which spike tissues play major roles in limiting F. graminearum infection, we explored the use of PvPGIP2 to defend specific spike tissues. We show here that the simultaneous expression of PvPGIP2 in lemma, palea, rachis, and anthers reduced FHB symptoms caused by F. graminearum compared with symptoms in infected nontransgenic plants. However, the expression of PvPGIP2 only in the endosperm did not affect FHB symptom development, indicating that once the pathogen has reached the endosperm, inhibition of the pathogen's PG activity is not effective in preventing its further spread.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 3

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Simultaneous PvPGIP2 expression in lemma, palea, rachis and anthers of wheat reduced F. graminearum FHB symptoms compared with infected nontransgenic plants.

Organ / stage
lemma, palea, rachis, and antherse1
Treatment
simultaneous expression of PvPGIP2e1
Interactor
F. graminearumFusarium graminearume1pathogen
Gene
PvPGIP2e1
Outcome
FHB symptomse1
Direction
reducede1
Comparator
infected nontransgenic plantse1

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“We show here that the simultaneous expression of PvPGIP2 in lemma, palea, rachis, and anthers reduced FHB symptoms caused by F. graminearum compared with symptoms in infected nontransgenic plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–1105 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

PvPGIP2 expression only in the endosperm did not affect FHB symptom development in wheat.

Organ / stage
endosperme2
Treatment
expression of PvPGIP2 only in the endosperme2
Interactor
F. graminearumFusarium graminearume1pathogen
Gene
PvPGIP2e2
Outcome
FHB symptom developmente2
Direction
did not affecte2

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“We show here that the simultaneous expression of PvPGIP2 in lemma, palea, rachis, and anthers reduced FHB symptoms caused by F. graminearum compared with symptoms in infected nontransgenic plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–1105 · show in text ↑
e2

“However, the expression of PvPGIP2 only in the endosperm did not affect FHB symptom development, indicating that once the pathogen has reached the endosperm, inhibition of the pathogen's PG activity is not effective in preventing its further spread”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1355 · show in text ↑
Mechanismauthor interpretationoriginal resultnegativebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Once F. graminearum reached the endosperm, inhibiting its PG activity was not effective in preventing further spread in wheat.

Organ / stage
endosperme2
Interactor
F. graminearumFusarium graminearume1pathogen
Outcome
further spreade2
Qualifier
inhibition of the pathogen's PG activity is not effectivee2

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Fusarium graminearum
Fusarium graminearum · InteractorScot Nelson from Honolulu, USA · CC0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“in Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 111–119 · show in text ↑
e1

“We show here that the simultaneous expression of PvPGIP2 in lemma, palea, rachis, and anthers reduced FHB symptoms caused by F. graminearum compared with symptoms in infected nontransgenic plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 910–1105 · show in text ↑
e2

“However, the expression of PvPGIP2 only in the endosperm did not affect FHB symptom development, indicating that once the pathogen has reached the endosperm, inhibition of the pathogen's PG activity is not effective in preventing its further spread”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1107–1355 · show in text ↑

transgenic · Fusarium graminearum · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 2 positive, 1 negative or no effect

2 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.