期刊论文详细信息
Proteome Science
Comparisons of protein profiles of beech bark disease resistant and susceptible American beech (Fagus grandifolia)
Research
Mary E Mason1  Marek Krasowski2  Judy Loo3  Jennifer L Koch4 
[1] Department of Entomology, Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center, The Ohio State University, 1680 Madison Ave, 44691, Wooster, OH, USA;Faculty of Forestry and Environmental Management, University of New Brunswick, P.O. Box 4400, 28 Dineen Drive, E3B 5A3, Fredericton, NB, Canada;Formerly: Canadian Forest Service, Natural Resources Canada, P.O. Box 4000, NB E3B 6J6, Fredericton, Canada;Bioversity International, Via dei Tre Denari, 472/a, 00057, Maccarese, Rome, Italy;US Forest Service, Northern Research Station, 359 Main Rd, 43015, Delaware, OH, USA;
关键词: Beech bark disease;    Beech scale;    Disease resistance;    Insect resistance;    Fagus;    Cryptococcus;    Neonectria;   
DOI  :  10.1186/1477-5956-11-2
 received in 2012-05-09, accepted in 2012-12-23,  发布年份 2013
来源: Springer
PDF
【 摘 要 】

BackgroundBeech bark disease is an insect-fungus complex that damages and often kills American beech trees and has major ecological and economic impacts on forests of the northeastern United States and southeastern Canadian forests. The disease begins when exotic beech scale insects feed on the bark of trees, and is followed by infection of damaged bark tissues by one of the Neonectria species of fungi. Proteomic analysis was conducted of beech bark proteins from diseased trees and healthy trees in areas heavily infested with beech bark disease. All of the diseased trees had signs of Neonectria infection such as cankers or fruiting bodies. In previous tests reported elsewhere, all of the diseased trees were demonstrated to be susceptible to the scale insect and all of the healthy trees were demonstrated to be resistant to the scale insect. Sixteen trees were sampled from eight geographically isolated stands, the sample consisting of 10 healthy (scale-resistant) and 6 diseased/infested (scale-susceptible) trees.ResultsProteins were extracted from each tree and analysed in triplicate by isoelectric focusing followed by denaturing gel electrophoresis. Gels were stained and protein spots identified and intensity quantified, then a statistical model was fit to identify significant differences between trees. A subset of BBD differential proteins were analysed by mass spectrometry and matched to known protein sequences for identification. Identified proteins had homology to stress, insect, and pathogen related proteins in other plant systems. Protein spots significantly different in diseased and healthy trees having no stand or disease-by-stand interaction effects were identified.ConclusionsFurther study of these proteins should help to understand processes critical to resistance to beech bark disease and to develop biomarkers for use in tree breeding programs and for the selection of resistant trees prior to or in early stages of BBD development in stands. Early identification of resistant trees (prior to the full disease development in an area) will allow forest management through the removal of susceptible trees and their root-sprouts prior to the onset of disease, allowing management and mitigation of costs, economic impact, and impacts on ecological systems and services.

【 授权许可】

Unknown   
© Mason et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2013. This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

【 预 览 】
附件列表
Files Size Format View
RO202311106791341ZK.pdf 745KB PDF download
【 参考文献 】
  • [1]
  • [2]
  • [3]
  • [4]
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • [8]
  • [9]
  • [10]
  • [11]
  • [12]
  • [13]
  • [14]
  • [15]
  • [16]
  • [17]
  • [18]
  • [19]
  • [20]
  • [21]
  • [22]
  • [23]
  • [24]
  • [25]
  • [26]
  • [27]
  • [28]
  • [29]
  • [30]
  • [31]
  • [32]
  • [33]
  • [34]
  • [35]
  • [36]
  • [37]
  • [38]
  • [39]
  • [40]
  • [41]
  • [42]
  • [43]
  • [44]
  • [45]
  • [46]
  • [47]
  • [48]
  • [49]
  • [50]
  • [51]
  • [52]
  • [53]
  • [54]
  • [55]
  • [56]
  • [57]
  • [58]
  • [59]
  • [60]
  • [61]
  • [62]
  • [63]
  • [64]
  • [65]
  • [66]
  • [67]
  • [68]
  • [69]
  • [70]
  • [71]
  • [72]
  • [73]
  • [74]
  • [75]
  • [76]
  • [77]
  文献评价指标  
  下载次数:4次 浏览次数:1次