Limits...
Two Theobroma cacao genotypes with contrasting pathogen tolerance show aberrant transcriptional and ROS responses after salicylic acid treatment.

Fister AS, O'Neil ST, Shi Z, Zhang Y, Tyler BM, Guiltinan MJ, Maximova SN - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Bottom Line: Varietal differences in defence responses provide insights into the mechanisms of resistance and are a key resource for plant breeders.Transient overexpression of TcNPR1, a major transcriptional regulator of the SA-dependent plant immune system, also increased pathogen tolerance in cacao leaves.These experiments revealed critical insights regarding the molecular differences between cacao varieties, which will allow a better understanding of defence mechanisms to help guide breeding programmes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Gene induction differences in Sca6 and ICS1. X-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated Sca6 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Y-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated ICS1 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Points represent the 234 genes with statistically significant (BH P<0.05) expression changes in both genotypes.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588882&req=5

Figure 3: Gene induction differences in Sca6 and ICS1. X-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated Sca6 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Y-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated ICS1 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Points represent the 234 genes with statistically significant (BH P<0.05) expression changes in both genotypes.


Two Theobroma cacao genotypes with contrasting pathogen tolerance show aberrant transcriptional and ROS responses after salicylic acid treatment.

Fister AS, O'Neil ST, Shi Z, Zhang Y, Tyler BM, Guiltinan MJ, Maximova SN - J. Exp. Bot. (2015)

Gene induction differences in Sca6 and ICS1. X-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated Sca6 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Y-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated ICS1 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Points represent the 234 genes with statistically significant (BH P<0.05) expression changes in both genotypes.
© Copyright Policy - creative-commons
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4588882&req=5

Figure 3: Gene induction differences in Sca6 and ICS1. X-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated Sca6 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Y-axis represents log2 expression change in SA-treated versus water-treated ICS1 leaves, after obtaining the general linear model mean of differences across leaf stages. Points represent the 234 genes with statistically significant (BH P<0.05) expression changes in both genotypes.
Bottom Line: Varietal differences in defence responses provide insights into the mechanisms of resistance and are a key resource for plant breeders.Transient overexpression of TcNPR1, a major transcriptional regulator of the SA-dependent plant immune system, also increased pathogen tolerance in cacao leaves.These experiments revealed critical insights regarding the molecular differences between cacao varieties, which will allow a better understanding of defence mechanisms to help guide breeding programmes.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: The Huck Institutes of the Life Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus