Back

Tomato fruit susceptibility to fungal disease can be uncoupled from ripening by suppressing susceptibility factors

Silva, C. J.; van den Abeele, C.; Ortega Salazar, I.; Papin, V.; Adaskaveg, J. A.; Wang, D.; Casteel, C. L.; Seymour, G. B.; Blanco-Ulate, B.

2020-06-04 plant biology
10.1101/2020.06.03.132829 bioRxiv
Show abstract

The increased susceptibility of ripe fruit to fungal pathogens poses a substantial threat to crop production and marketability. Here, we coupled transcriptomic analyses with mutant studies to uncover critical processes associated with defenses and susceptibility in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) fruit. Using unripe and ripe fruit inoculated with three fungal pathogens, we identified common pathogen responses reliant on chitinases, WRKY transcription factors, and reactive oxygen species detoxification. We established that the magnitude and diversity of defense responses do not significantly impact the interaction outcome, as susceptible ripe fruit mounted a strong defense response to pathogen infection. Then, to distinguish features of ripening that may be responsible for susceptibility, we utilized non-ripening tomato mutants that displayed different susceptibility patterns to fungal infection. Based on transcriptional and hormone profiling, susceptible tomato genotypes had losses in the maintenance of cellular redox homeostasis, while jasmonic acid accumulation and signaling coincided with defense activation in resistant fruit. We identified and validated a susceptibility factor, pectate lyase (PL). CRISPR-based knockouts of PL, but not polygalacturonase (PG2a), reduced susceptibility of ripe fruit by >50%. This study suggests that targeting specific genes that drive susceptibility is a viable strategy to improve the resistance of tomato fruit against fungal disease. HighlightIncreased susceptibility to fungal disease during tomato ripening is driven by the accumulation of susceptibility factors and not the lack of defense responses.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.