Back

Characterisation of gene expression markers and glucosinolates during discrete infection stages of Pyrenopeziza brassicae in Brassica napus

Muthayil Ali, A. M.; Gimenez Molina, L.; Crocoll, C.; Qi, A.; Halkier, B. A.; Stotz, H. U.; Wells, R.

2026-07-15 plant biology
10.64898/2026.07.15.736298 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Light leaf spot (LLS), caused by subcuticular hemibiotrophic ascomycete fungus Pyrenopeziza brassicae, is a major constraint on oilseed rape (Brassica napus) production, yet the genetic and biochemical mechanisms of quantitative disease resistance (QDR) remain poorly defined. Here, disease phenotyping, pathogen quantification, microscopy, gene expression profiling and glucosinolate (GSL) analysis were integrated to dissect resistance mechanisms in B. napus. Disease assays of 19 diverse lines revealed clear contrasts between susceptible and resistant genotypes, with the commercial cultivar Ambassador showing a phenotype inconsistent with the UK Recommended List rating. Microscopy demonstrated that resistance within doubled haploid line Cubs Root does not inhibit spore germination or penetration but restricts hyphal branching and subcuticular colonisation from 4 to 8 days post-inoculation. Expression profiling of seven candidate gene expression markers (GEMs) and pathogenesis-related PR1 showed that cinnamate-4-hydroxylase, phospholipase C4, {beta}-adaptin, universal stress protein and the 40S ribosomal subunit protein S24 were strongly pathogen-induced in resistant lines, whereas a BAHD acyltransferase, a putative susceptibility factor, was induced only in susceptible cultivars. GSL profiling identified negative correlations between disease severity and total GSLs, particularly aliphatic and aromatic GSLs, with 2{square}phenylethyl and 7-methylsulfinyl heptyl GSLs showing the strongest associations with resistance. Together, these results highlight coordinated transcriptional and metabolic responses that limit pathogen proliferation and provide targets for breeding durable LLS resistance in B. napus.

Matching journals

The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
New Phytologist
346 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
10.3%
2
Molecular Plant Pathology
25 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.6%
3
Plant Disease
23 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
7.6%
4
Journal of Experimental Botany
219 papers in training set
Top 1%
6.5%
5
Phytopathology®
31 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
5.3%
6
PLOS ONE
5266 papers in training set
Top 29%
5.3%
7
Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions®
57 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
5.0%
8
PLOS Pathogens
820 papers in training set
Top 4%
4.2%
50% of probability mass above
9
Plant Pathology
18 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
4.2%
10
Plant Direct
95 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
4.2%
11
G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics
252 papers in training set
Top 1%
3.9%
12
BMC Plant Biology
57 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
3.9%
13
Scientific Reports
3612 papers in training set
Top 37%
3.1%
14
The Plant Journal
215 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.4%
15
Theoretical and Applied Genetics
49 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
2.1%
16
Frontiers in Plant Science
256 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.7%
17
Pest Management Science
36 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.3%
18
Nature Communications
5641 papers in training set
Top 52%
1.1%
19
Plants
43 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.1%
20
BMC Genomics
406 papers in training set
Top 7%
1.0%
21
G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics
35 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
1.0%
22
Plant Physiology and Biochemistry
20 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.9%
23
Horticulture Research
47 papers in training set
Top 1.0%
0.8%
24
PLOS Genetics
862 papers in training set
Top 13%
0.8%
25
Plant Physiology
238 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.8%
26
PLANTS, PEOPLE, PLANET
27 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.8%
27
Plant Stress
12 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
0.6%
28
Environmental Microbiology Reports
31 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%
29
Plant Cell Reports
17 papers in training set
Top 0.8%
0.6%
30
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology
32 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.6%