Next Article in Journal
Detection of Leptosphaeria maculans and Leptosphaeria biglobosa Causing Blackleg Disease in Canola from Canadian Canola Seed Lots and Dockage
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Drought on Herbivore-Induced Plant Gene Expression: Population Comparison for Range Limit Inferences
Previous Article in Journal
Acknowledgement to Reviewers of Plants in 2015
Previous Article in Special Issue
How Microbes Twist Jasmonate Signaling around Their Little Fingers
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/plants5010011
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Jasmonate Signalling and Defence Responses in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula—A Focus on Responses to Fusarium Wilt Disease

by
Louise F. Thatcher
1,*,
Ling-Ling Gao
1 and
Karam B. Singh
1,2
1
CSIRO Agriculture, Centre for Environment and Life Sciences, Wembley, Western Australia 6913, Australia
2
The Institute of Agriculture, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia 6009, Australia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2016, 5(1), 11; https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants5010011
Submission received: 27 November 2015 / Revised: 1 February 2016 / Accepted: 3 February 2016 / Published: 5 February 2016
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Jasmonate Pathway)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Jasmonate (JA)-mediated defences play important roles in host responses to pathogen attack, in particular to necrotrophic fungal pathogens that kill host cells in order to extract nutrients and live off the dead plant tissue. The root-infecting fungal pathogen Fusarium oxysporum initiates a necrotrophic growth phase towards the later stages of its lifecycle and is responsible for devastating Fusarium wilt disease on numerous legume crops worldwide. Here we describe the use of the model legume Medicago truncatula to study legume–F. oxysporum interactions and compare and contrast this against knowledge from other model pathosystems, in particular Arabidopsis thaliana–F. oxysporum interactions. We describe publically-available genomic, transcriptomic and genetic (mutant) resources developed in M. truncatula that enable dissection of host jasmonate responses and apply aspects of these herein during the M. truncatula-–F. oxysporum interaction. Our initial results suggest not all components of JA-responses observed in M. truncatula are shared with Arabidopsis in response to F. oxysporum infection.

1. Introduction

1.1. Pathogen Background

Fusarium oxysporum is a globally ubiquitous soil-borne fungus capable of infecting over 100 different plant species. This root-infecting fungus causes Fusarium wilt disease characterised by obstruction of the vascular system and the appearance of wilting. Initial root penetration is through wounds or at natural openings at the base of lateral root initials, followed by colonisation of the vascular system where spores, hyphal growth and the action of secreted pathogen toxins clog the xylem vessels and the flow of water. This is exacerbated by the action of host defences aiming to limit pathogen spread but ultimately also blocking xylem vessels [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8].
Pathogenic F. oxysporum isolates notably cause disease on many important agronomical crops including grain and pasture legumes (chickpea, Cicer arietinum; field pea, Pisum sativum; lentil, Lens culinaris; lucerne/alfalfa, Medicago sativa), cotton (Gossypium species), banana (Musa species) and tomatoe (Solanum lycopersicum), and was ranked 5th out of the top 10 plant pathogens of scientific/economic importance [7,9,10,11]. The ability of specialised strains of F. oxysporum to cause disease on specific hosts is used to classify this pathogen into host-specific sub-species known as formae speciales (ff. spp.) [2,4,7] (singular forma specialis, abbreviated: f. sp.) and further into races depending on host cultivar resistance. For example, F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici infects tomato, f. sp. conglutinans infects canola and Brassica crops, and f. sp. ciceris infects chickpea (Cicer arietinum). F. oxysporum f. sp. ciceris is a major of pathogen of chickpea, the second most important legume crop worldwide [12], typically causing yield losses upwards of 10% with complete loss not uncommon under conducive conditions [8,13,14,15].

1.2. Host Jasmonate Signaling and F. oxysporum Disease Outcome

The F. oxysporum–host interaction is best understood in tomato and Arabidopsis, in the first instance due to identification of classical gene-for-gene mediated resistance and identification of F. oxysporum pathogenicity factors, and in the second instance to the use of in-depth genetic resources available to dissect host responses and the roles of hormone signalling [5,10,16,17,18,19]. In particular, evidence points towards contrasting roles for jasmonate (JA) signalling and JA-mediated defence in Arabidopsis resistance to F. oxysporum [10,18,20,21,22]. In Arabidopsis, JA-induced defences are critical for resistance against most fungal necrotrophs (e.g. Botrytis cinerea, Alternaria brassicicola) [23,24,25], but in the Arabidopsis–F. oxysporum interaction while JA-mediated defences contribute positively to F. oxysporum resistance, up-regulation of non-defensive components of JA-signalling such as senescence appear to promote susceptibility [17,18,26,27,28,29,30]. Together with JASMONATE ZIM DOMAIN (ZIM) proteins, the F-box protein CORONATINE INSENSITIVE 1 (COI1) forms part of the JA co-receptor complex for perception of the JA-signal (reviewed in [31]). Arabidopsis coi1 mutants are insensitive to the JA-signal and remarkably in the absence of activated JA-mediated defences, coi1 plants fail to develop disease symptoms following F. oxysporum infection [18,32,33]. This response appears dependent on the formae speciales used in disease assays, but consistent when used with those isolated off cabbage (F. oxysporum f. sp conglutinans) [16,18,26,32]. Interestingly, JA does not appear to play the same role in defence responses in tomato against F. oxysporum or other fungal necrotrophs and highlights the need to study host–pathogen interactions in model systems more closely related to the crop species in question [8,32,34,35]. In legumes, in addition to roles in pathogen interactions, JAs are also involved in regulating interactions with beneficial root-colonizing microorganisms [36,37,38,39,40,41].
JA is produced from the major plant plasma membrane lipid α-linolenic acid via the action of lipoxygenases and the octadecanoid biosynthetic pathway and is rapidly produced in response to pathogen or pest attack [31,42,43]. JA is then enzymatically converted into various derivatives such as JA–methyl ester (MeJA) and JA–amino acid conjugates, with JA-isoleucine the ligand for COI1-JAZ co-receptor recognition and activation of subsequent downstream JA-mediated responses [31,44,45,46,47]. Following pathogen or pest attack this may include the expression of defence-related genes such PROTEINASE INHIBITORS (PIs), VEGETATIVE STORAGE PROTEINS (VSPs), CHITINASES and DEFENSINS. Additionally, in a feedback loop, JA also induces the expression of genes that regulate its own biosynthesis such as LIPOXYGENASES (LOX), OPDA REDUCTASE3 (OPR3) and ALLENE OXIDE SYNTHASE (AOS) [31,48,49,50].

1.3. Fusarium Wilt of Legumes

In legumes various sources of host resistance against F. oxysporum (f. sp. ciceris, chickpea; f. sp. pisi, pea; f. sp. phaseoli, bean; f. sp. medicaginis, Medicago species including alfalfa/lucerne) have been identified but the underlying genetic (e.g., Resistance genes) or molecular mechanisms are yet to be fully elucidated ([8,51,52,53,54,55] reviewed in [4]). To study the interaction between F. oxysporum and legume hosts we developed a model legume pathosystem utilising the model legume Medicago truncatula and its corresponding pathogenic f. sp. medicaginis isolated off alfalfa. While M. truncatula in its own right is an important pasture legume, it was also selected as a model species to study biological processes that are not easily undertaken in other legumes due to their large and/or complex genomes, and also to study processes unique to legumes (e.g., rhizobial symbioses) that cannot be studied in other model species such as Arabidopsis that do not undergo symbiotic interactions [36,56,57]. Indeed, it is reported Arabidopsis and M. truncatula lack extensive macrosynteny and share low levels of microsynteny (8%–10%) [57,58]. In addition to studying legume-specific biotic interactions, M. truncatula is also used as a model to dissect legume–pathogen interactions including necrotrophic fungal pathogens [38,39,59].
M. truncatula has been adopted by several groups worldwide as a model to identify and assess resistance mechanisms in legumes against Fusarium wilt [51,52,53] as well as other vascular wilt diseases and root rots such as Verticillium wilt (Verticillium albo-atrum) [60] and Fusarium root rot (Fusarium solani) [59]. In this review we describe current genomic and genetic resources available in M. truncatula and apply aspects to gain insight into host JA-responses during legume F. oxysporum interactions and how they may differ from JA-responses observed in Arabidopsis.

2. Genomic and Transcriptomic M. truncatula Resources

A reference M. truncatula genome was generated by The M. truncatula sequencing project in the A17 accession [61], with over 350 other lines from diverse genetic backgrounds now also under resequencing at greater than 5X coverage [62]. Expressed Sequence Tag (EST) resources and microarray platforms were also developed [57,63]. A gene expression “atlas” (M. truncatula Gene Expression Atlas, MtGEA [64]) was developed to display expression profiles of most M. truncatula genes covering major tissues (roots, nodules, stems, petioles, leaves, vegetative buds, flowers, seeds and seed pods), developmental time-series, and following various abiotic and biotic stresses [65,66] and more recently global gene expression data is available for viewing through the Genevestigator platform [67].

Utilizing Gene Expression Resources to Study Medicago Responses to F. oxysporum Infection

To dissect JA-responses in the M. truncatula–F. oxysporum interaction we first aimed to identify M. truncatula genes responsive to JA. To do so, we inspected the M. truncatula Gene Expression Atlas for genes with the highest levels of up-regulated expression following MeJA treatment. This involved examining a dataset sourced from M. truncatula A17 cell suspensions treated with MeJA for 24 hours against a dataset from a control treatment for the same time period [68]. This process identified 245 genes with expression up-regulated ≥10-fold. Several LOXs, PEPTIDASES, PIs, VSPs and CHITINASES were amongst the most highly induced genes. As shown in Table 1, an assessment for biological processes enriched in the 245 gene set identified biological processes encompassing lipid and fatty acid biosynthetic/metabolic processes and response stimuli (biotic, chemical). Similar profiles are observed in Arabidopsis following MeJA [69] suggesting at least JA-regulated defence genes in F. oxysporum interactions identified in Arabidopsis may be transferrable to M. truncatula.
Table
Table 1. Top 20 Gene Ontology (GO) biological process categories enriched in MeJA treated Medicago suspension cells. Based on significance of enrichment (False Discovery Rate (FDR) < 0.05) in genes expressed ≥10-fold in 24 h MeJA treated cell suspension relative to control treatment at the same time-point. Data sourced from MtGEA [64,65,66,68] and analyzed via agriGO [70].
Table 1. Top 20 Gene Ontology (GO) biological process categories enriched in MeJA treated Medicago suspension cells. Based on significance of enrichment (False Discovery Rate (FDR) < 0.05) in genes expressed ≥10-fold in 24 h MeJA treated cell suspension relative to control treatment at the same time-point. Data sourced from MtGEA [64,65,66,68] and analyzed via agriGO [70].
TermDescriptionFDR
GO:0044255cellular lipid metabolic process1.40E-17
GO:0019748secondary metabolic process1.40E-15
GO:0008610lipid biosynthetic process1.40E-15
GO:0032787monocarboxylic acid metabolic process2.40E-14
GO:0050896response to stimulus4.80E-14
GO:0009607response to biotic stimulus2.60E-13
GO:0010033response to organic substance2.30E-11
GO:0016053organic acid biosynthetic process3.10E-11
GO:0046394carboxylic acid biosynthetic process3.10E-11
GO:0006629lipid metabolic process3.80E-11
GO:0043436oxoacid metabolic process4.80E-11
GO:0006082organic acid metabolic process4.80E-11
GO:0019752carboxylic acid metabolic process4.80E-11
GO:0042180cellular ketone metabolic process4.80E-11
GO:0006720isoprenoid metabolic process5.20E-11
GO:0006631fatty acid metabolic process7.20E-11
GO:0006633fatty acid biosynthetic process1.90E-10
GO:0009719response to endogenous stimulus2.30E-10
GO:0042221response to chemical stimulus7.20E-10
GO:0008299isoprenoid biosynthetic process1.10E-09
In Arabidopsis, following treatment with F. oxysporum a significant induction in JA-regulated defence gene expression is observed, where it is markedly greater in shoot (above ground) tissues than in roots [18,20,27]. To determine if similar patterns are observed in M. truncatula we treated M. truncatula A17 seedlings with F. oxysporum f. sp. medicaginis or a control (mock) treatment and examined whether candidate JA-responsive genes identified from the Gene Expression Atlas assessment and/or previously validated as MeJA-responsive [71], were induced in roots and shoots over an infection time-course (Figure 1). In this interaction, A17 displays moderate to strong resistance (Figure 2). Apart from one of the CHITINASE genes examined which showed a quicker and slightly greater induction in root tissues, in agreement with Arabidopsis the expression of JA-regulated defence genes tested (PI, VSP, CHITINASES) were predominantly up-regulated in shoot tissues. Ramírez-Suero and colleagues [53] also examined the expression of a CHITINASE and PI following F. oxysporum infection of M. truncatula, but only in root tissues. In that study they found A17 was susceptible to the isolate tested (F. oxysporum f. sp. medicaginis 179.29) and CHITINASE but not PI expression was up-regulated. A comparison between Arabidopsis and M. truncatula defensin-like (DEFL) genes, including those with JA-dependent expression, revealed differences in their gene expression patterns. Notably the majority of Arabidopsis DEFLs were expressed in inflorescences and not roots, while those in M. truncatula were predominantly expressed in root nodules [72].
Plants 05 00011 g001 1024
Figure 1. JA-inducible gene expression following F. oxysporum infection. M. truncatula A17 seedlings were inoculated with F. oxysporum (Fom-5190a) and root and shoot tissues harvested separately at 1, 2, 4 and 7 days post inoculation (dpi). Gene expression values were determined relative to the internal control Beta-tubulin gene for each mock or Fusarium treated sample. Values shown are fold-inductions in Fusarium treated samples relative to mock treated samples at the same time-point from the average of eight pooled plants.
Figure 1. JA-inducible gene expression following F. oxysporum infection. M. truncatula A17 seedlings were inoculated with F. oxysporum (Fom-5190a) and root and shoot tissues harvested separately at 1, 2, 4 and 7 days post inoculation (dpi). Gene expression values were determined relative to the internal control Beta-tubulin gene for each mock or Fusarium treated sample. Values shown are fold-inductions in Fusarium treated samples relative to mock treated samples at the same time-point from the average of eight pooled plants.
Plants 05 00011 g001
We next examined expression of a candidate JA-biosynthesis LOX gene (LOX3) that is highly MeJA inducible [71] and of the MtLOX genes examined in MtGEA, exhibits the highest levels of expression. In Arabidopsis oxygenation of α-linolenic acid by one of its four 13-LOX proteins (AtLOX2, AtLOX3, AtLOX4, AtLOX6) is the first step in JA-biosynthesis with AtLOX2 the main contributor to JA production. Although the two remaining LOXs in Arabidopsis (9-LOXs AtLOX1 and AtLOX5) are not involved in JA-biosynthesis, they are involved in defence against bacterial pathogen attack (reviewed in [31]). In contrast to Arabidopsis where F. oxysporum infection induces the expression of LOX and other JA-biosynthesis genes (albeit to lower levels than JA-regulated defence genes) [18], we observed no induction in M. truncatula LOX3 expression (Figure 1). This may suggest JA-signalling in M. truncatula differs to that in Arabidopsis in response to F. oxysporum infection. Further analysis of global JA-biosynthetic gene expression patterns and abundance of JA itself and its intermediates will be needed to unravel distinct JA-signalling processes in the M. truncatula-F. oxysporum interaction.

3. Genetic/Mutant Resources Available in M. truncatula

Several biological resources have been developed in M. truncatula to facilitate the elucidation of gene function [73,74,75]. This includes M. truncatula germplasm from diverse sources [62] as well as mutant populations generated through various techniques including Fast Neutron Bombardment [76], ethyl methane-sulfonate (EMS) [75,77,78] and Tnt1 retrotransposon insertional mutagenesis [76]. The latter has become an excellent resource for reverse-genetics studies. Combining Tnt1 mutant lines from the European Grain Legumes Integrated Project (GLIP) with the M. truncatula mutant database at the Noble Foundation [79,80], it is estimated the mutant resource contains insertions in ~90% of all genes. So far over 700,000 (high and low confidence) Flanking Sequence Tag (FST) information associated with insertions is available (accessed 08-10-2015).

Utilizing M. truncatula Mutant Resources to Dissect Host JA-Responses under F. oxysporum Infection

In Arabidopsis the activation of JA-mediated defence responses promotes resistance to F. oxysporum, and the manipulation of transcriptional machinery that control these responses can alter disease outcome [81,82]. For example, mutation of the MYC2 (JAI1/JIN1 JASMONATE-INSENSITIVE1) and LBD20 (LATERAL ORGAN BOUNDARIES (LOB) DOMAIN-CONTAINING PROTEIN20) transcription factors (key JA-defence and MYC2-regulated transcription factors respectively), mutation of PFT1 (PHYTOCHROME AND FLOWERING TIME1) and ESR1 (KH-domain containing RNA-binding) both interacting components of the broader RNA polymerase II complex, or over-expression of the ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTORS ERF1 and AtERF2 (transcriptional activators of JA-defences), results in increased resistance to F. oxysporum [17,20,21,29,30,83]. Interestingly however, overexpression of MtERF1 in M. truncatula does not confer increased resistance to F. oxysporum [84] suggesting in combination with our examination of JA-mediated gene expression, unique differences in JA-responses exist between the two model systems.
To initiate a dissection of the role of host JA-responses in M. truncatula–F. oxysporum interactions we generated homozygous Tnt1 mutants of Mterf1 and a LOX (Mtlox1) obtained from the M. truncatula mutant database (Table 2). In Arabidopsis JA-biosynthesis itself does not appear to affect F. oxysporum disease outcome as mutants of the JA-biosynthesis pathway (e.g. opr3, aos) are as susceptible to F. oxysporum as wild-type plants and exogenous application of MeJA does not enhance resistance [18,19]. Studies in several plant species including M. truncatula have revealed roles for 9-LOXs in defence against fungal pathogens (reviewed in [85,86]). We therefore chose to assess a 9-LOX mutant instead of a 13-LOX. The MtLOX gene we selected here (Medtr8g018430) is annotated as encoding a 9S-LOX and when similarity against Arabidopsis proteins was conducted by Blastp to identify the Arabidopsis homologue, both LOX1 and LOX5 (9-LOXs) were the best hits. We infected the Mtlox1 and Mterf1 mutants alongside the reference genotype A17 and the accession R108 in which the mutant lines were generated. Both mutant lines showed a reduction in survival rate 28 days post infection (dpi) with all Mtlox1 mutants dead by 35 dpi (Figure 2). Caution needs to be taken with the Mtlox mutant results as unlike the other genotypes assessed here which showed no reduction in survival following mock inoculation (water treatment), the Mtlox1 seedlings were sensitive to the treatment process with a 60% survival rate at 35 dpi. The Mterf1 mutant was also more susceptible to F. oxysporum infection as they succumb to disease pressure earlier than R108. Therefore while overexpression of MtERF1 does not increase resistance to F. oxysporum, insertion inactivation appears to have an effect. In summary, our initial results suggest components of JA-signalling may be important determinants of disease outcome in M. truncatula.
Table
Table 2. Details of Tnt1-insertion lines used in this study.
Table 2. Details of Tnt1-insertion lines used in this study.
Putative MutantMedtr IDTCInsertion LineGene FunctionArabidopsis Homologue
Mtlox1Medtr8g018430TC132688NF0217 insertion Ase89S-lipoxygenaseAT1G55020 LOX1
AT3G22400 LOX5
Mterf1Medtr4g100380TC114237NF1858 insertion 26MtERF1-A transcription factorAT4G17500 ATERF-1
Note, MtLOX1 shares the same percentage amino acid identity with both LOX1 and LOX5 from Arabidopsis. TC: tentative consensus.
Plants 05 00011 g002 1024
Figure 2. Susceptibility of JA-related Tnt1-insertion mutants to F. oxysporum. Seedlings were inoculated with F. oxysporum (Fom-5190a) and survival rates monitored over 35-days. Values are averages ± SE (n = 10). The Tnt1-insertion mutants are in the R108 background and their details noted in Table 2. A17 is included as a resistant control. Asterisks indicate values that are significantly different (** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, Student’s t-test) from R108. Similar results were obtained in an independent experiment.
Figure 2. Susceptibility of JA-related Tnt1-insertion mutants to F. oxysporum. Seedlings were inoculated with F. oxysporum (Fom-5190a) and survival rates monitored over 35-days. Values are averages ± SE (n = 10). The Tnt1-insertion mutants are in the R108 background and their details noted in Table 2. A17 is included as a resistant control. Asterisks indicate values that are significantly different (** p < 0.01, * p < 0.05, Student’s t-test) from R108. Similar results were obtained in an independent experiment.
Plants 05 00011 g002

4. Experimental Section

4.1. Plant Growth Conditions

Unless otherwise specified, all experiments were conducted with the M. truncatula accessions A17 or R108 grown under a short day light regime (8 h light:16 h dark) at 21 °C as described previously [71]. Seeds were germinated on damp filter paper, then transplanted into 30 mm Jiffy-7 peat pellets. Homozygous M. truncatula Tnt1-insertion lines were selected by PCR according to recommendations by [76].

4.2. Pathogen Assays

Plant pathogen assays were conducted using F. oxysporum f. sp. medicaginis strain Fom-5190a (BRIP 5190a/IMI 172838, collection number 19911) isolated from Medicago sativa by John. A. Irwin in Boonah (QLD, Australia) in 1973. Fom-5190a was maintained on sterile filter paper and grown on ½ strength potato dextrose agar. Three agar plugs were inoculated into flasks containing 100 mL of ½ strength potato dextrose broth and grown for 3 days at 28 °C/100 rpm. The resulting culture was drained through Miracloth (Calbiochem, San Diego, CA, USA,), spores pelleted through centrifugation, resuspended in sterile distilled water and the concentration adjusted to 1 × 106 spores mL−1. For plant inoculations, two week old seedlings had roots protruding from the peat pellets trimmed then inoculated by placing the peat pellets in a petri dish of spore suspension for 5 min, followed by a further 1 mL of spore suspension added to the base of the hypocotyl. Inoculated pellets were transferred to growth trays lined with a plastic sheet and a thin layer of damp vermiculite, covered with a clear plastic dome to maintain humidity, and incubated under a long-daylight regime (16-h light/8-h dark) at 28 °C.

4.3. qRT-PCR

Quantitative-RT-PCR (qRT-PCR) experiments were performed on tissue collected after mock or F. oxysporum treatment. RNA extraction, cDNA synthesis and qRT-PCR were conducted as described by [21] using a CFX384 (Bio-Rad) system. Absolute gene expression levels relative to the validated reference gene M. truncatula Beta-tubulin were used for each cDNA sample using the equation: relative ratio gene of interest/Beta-Tubulin = (Egene−Ct gene)/(EBetatub−Ct Betatub) where Ct is the cycle threshold value. The gene specific primer sequences have been published previously [71] or are Chitinase TC95083 (F: 5’-ATGGCCAAACTCCAACTCTAAA-3’, R: 5’-ATTGAGGTGCTGCAGACAAGTA-3’) and Chitinase TC106402 (F: 5’-TTGCCGCGACTAGATCTTTTA-3’, R: 5’-GCGTCCATCTTCCAATAATCA-3’).

5. Conclusions

Based on the results presented herein, the detailed knowledgebase from JA-responses in Arabidopsis–F. oxysporum interactions are not all fully translatable to the interaction in M. truncatula. Legumes such as M. truncatula exist in complex interactions with both microbial pathogens and symbionts, thus the role of JA-signaling seems optimized to play different roles in response to the same pathogen of other hosts. It is envisaged the growing abundance of genomic, transcriptomic and genetic resources in M. truncatula will expedite the process of unravelling the roles of JA-signaling and responses controlling host disease outcome to devastating Fusarium wilt disease. Ultimately this knowledge will be disseminated to economically important legume crops used throughout the globe.

Acknowledgments

This research was funded through the Grains Research and Development Corporation (GRDC) and the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). We thank the Samuel Roberts Noble Foundation for the M. truncatula Tnt1-insertion lines [76], the Queensland Plant Pathology Herbarium (BRIP) for the F. oxysporum isolate used in this study (strain Fom-5190a), and Jonathan Anderson for the CHITINASE qRT-PCR primers. We thank Elaine Smith, Nicholas Pain and Sally-Anne Buck for technical assistance, and Brendan Kidd for helpful comments.

Author Contributions

Louise F. Thatcher conceived and performed the experiments, analysed results and wrote the manuscript. Ling-Ling Gao generated homozygous Tnt1-insertion lines. Ling-Ling Gao and Karam B. Singh contributed resources and to manuscript writing.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Beckman, C.H. (Ed.) The Nature of Wilt Diseases of Plants; Aps Press: St. Paul, MN, USA, 1987.
  2. Gordon, T.R.; Martyn, R.D. The Evolutionary Biology of Fusarium oxysporum. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1997, 35, 111–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Recorbet, G.; Steinberg, C.; Olivain, C.; Edel, V.; Trouvelot, S.; Dumas-Gaudot, E.; Gianinazzi, S.; Alabouvette, C. Wanted: Pathogenesis-Related Marker Molecules for Fusarium oxysporum. New Phytol. 2003, 159, 73–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Michielse, C.B.; Rep, M. Pathogen Profile Update: Fusarium oxysporum. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009, 10, 311–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Kidd, B.N.; Kadoo, N.Y.; Dombrecht, B.; Tekeoglu, M.; Gardiner, D.M.; Thatcher, L.F.; Aitken, E.A.; Schenk, P.M.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. Auxin Signaling and Transport Promote Susceptibility to the Root-Infecting Fungal Pathogen Fusarium oxysporum in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2011, 24, 733–748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Perez-Nadales, E.; Almeida Nogueira, M.F.; Baldin, C.; Castanheira, S.; El Ghalid, M.; Grund, E.; Lengeler, K.; Marchegiani, E.; Mehrotra, P.V.; Moretti, M.; et al. Fungal Model Systems and the Elucidation of Pathogenicity Determinants. Fungal Genet. Biol. 2014, 70, 42–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  7. Agrios, G.N. Plant Diseases Caused By Fungi. In Plant Pathology, 5th ed.; Agrios, G.N., Ed.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 2005; Chapter Eleven; pp. 385–614. [Google Scholar]
  8. Gupta, S.; Bhar, A.; Das, S. Understanding the Molecular Defence Responses of Host During Chickpea–Fusarium Interplay: Where do We Stand? Funct. Plant Biol. 2013, 40, 1285–1297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pietro, A.D.; Madrid, M.P.; Caracuel, Z.; Delgado-Jarana, J.; Roncero, M.I.G. Fusarium oxysporum: Exploring the Molecular Arsenal of a Vascular Wilt Fungus. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 4, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Berrocal-Lobo, M.; Molina, A. Arabidopsis Defense Response against Fusarium oxysporum. Trends Plant Sci. 2008, 13, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Dean, R.; Van Kan, J.A.L.; Pretorius, Z.A.; Hammond-Kosack, K.E.; Di Pietro, A.; Spanu, P.D.; Rudd, J.J.; Dickman, M.; Kahmann, R.; Ellis, J.; et al. The Top 10 Fungal Pathogens in Molecular Plant Pathology. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 414–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Statistics Division. Available online: http://faostat3.fao.org/home/e (accessed on 15 May 2015).
  13. Navas-Cortés, J.A.; Hau, B.; Jiménez-Díaz, R.M. Yield Loss in Chickpeas in Relation to Development of Fusarium Wilt Epidemics. Phytopathology 2000, 90, 1269–1278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Trapero-Casas, A.; Jiménez-Díaz, R.M. Fungal Wilt and Root Rot Diseases of Chickpea in Southern Spain. Phytopathology 1985, 75, 1146–1151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Sharma, K.D.; Chen, W.; Muehlbauer, F.J. Genetics of Chickpea Resistance to Five Races of Fusarium Wilt and a Concise Set of Race Differentials for Fusarium oxysporum F. Sp. Ciceris. Plant Dis. 2005, 89, 385–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Diener, A.C.; Ausubel, F.M. Resistance to Fusarium oxysporum 1, a Dominant Arabidopsis Disease-Resistance Gene, Is Not Race Specific. Genetics 2005, 171, 305–321. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Anderson, J.P.; Badruzsaufari, E.; Schenk, P.M.; Manners, J.M.; Desmond, O.J.; Ehlert, C.; Maclean, D.J.; Ebert, P.R.; Kazan, K. Antagonistic Interaction Between Abscisic Acid and Jasmonate-Ethylene Signaling Pathways Modulates Defense Gene Expression and Disease Resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 3460–3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Thatcher, L.F.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. Fusarium oxysporum Hijacks Coi1-Mediated Jasmonate Signaling to Promote Disease Development in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2009, 58, 927–939. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Edgar, C.I.; Mcgrath, K.C.; Dombrecht, B.; Manners, J.M.; Maclean, D.C.; Schenk, P.M.; Kazan, K. Salicylic Acid Mediates Resistance to the Vascular Wilt Pathogen Fusarium oxysporum in the Model Host Arabidopsis thaliana. Australas. Plant Pathol. 2006, 35, 581–591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kidd, B.N.; Edgar, C.I.; Kumar, K.K.; Aitken, E.A.; Schenk, P.M.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. The Mediator Complex Subunit Pft1 Is a Key Regulator of Jasmonate-Dependent Defense in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 2237–2252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Thatcher, L.F.; Kamphuis, L.G.; Hane, J.K.; Oñate-Sánchez, L.; Singh, K.B. The Arabidopsis Kh-Domain Rna-Binding Protein Esr1 Functions in Components of Jasmonate Signalling, Unlinking Growth Restraint and Resistance to Stress. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, E0126978. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Takken, F.; Rep, M. The Arms Race between Tomato and Fusarium oxysporum. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2010, 11, 309–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Glazebrook, J. Contrasting Mechanisms of Defense Against Biotrophic and Necrotrophic Pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2005, 43, 205–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Laluk, K.; Mengiste, T. Necrotroph Attacks on Plants: Wanton Destruction or Covert Extortion? Arabidopsis Book 2010, 8, E0136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Thomma, B.P.; Eggermont, K.; Penninckx, I.A.; Mauch-Mani, B.; Vogelsang, R.; Cammue, B.P.; Broekaert, W.F. Separate Jasmonate-Dependent and Salicylate-Dependent Defense-Response Pathways in Arabidopsis Are Essential for Resistance to Distinct Microbial Pathogens. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1998, 95, 15107–15111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Thatcher, L.F.; Gardiner, D.M.; Kazan, K.; Manners, J.M. A Highly Conserved Effector in Fusarium oxysporum Is Required for Full Virulence on Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2012, 25, 180–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Lyons, R.; Stiller, J.; Powell, J.; Rusu, A.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. Fusarium oxysporum Triggers Tissue-Specific Transcriptional Reprogramming in Arabidopsis thaliana. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, E0121902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Schenk, P.M.; Kazan, K.; Rusu, A.G.; Manners, J.M.; Maclean, D.J. The Sen1 Gene of Arabidopsis Is Regulated By Signals that Link Plant Defence Responses and Senescence. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2005, 43, 997–1005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Mcgrath, K.C.; Dombrecht, B.; Manners, J.M.; Schenk, P.M.; Edgar, C.I.; Maclean, D.J.; Scheible, W.R.; Udvardi, M.K.; Kazan, K. Repressor- and Activator-Type Ethylene Response Factors Functioning in Jasmonate Signaling and Disease Resistance Identified via a Genome-Wide Screen of Arabidopsis Transcription Factor Gene Expression. Plant Physiol. 2005, 139, 949–959. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Thatcher, L.F.; Powell, J.J.; Aitken, E.A.; Kazan, K.; Manners, J.M. The Lateral Organ Boundaries Domain Transcription Factor Lbd20 Functions in Fusarium Wilt Susceptibility and Jasmonate Signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 407–418. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Wasternack, C.; Hause, B. Jasmonates: Biosynthesis, Perception, Signal Transduction and Action in Plant Stress Response, Growth and Development. An Update to the 2007 Review in Annals of Botany. Ann. Bot. 2013, 111, 1021–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Cole, S.J.; Yoon, A.J.; Faull, K.F.; Diener, A.C. Host Perception of Jasmonates Promotes Infection By Fusarium oxysporum Formae Speciales that Produce Isoleucine- and Leucine-Conjugated Jasmonates. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2014, 15, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Feys, B.; Benedetti, C.E.; Penfold, C.N.; Turner, J.G. Arabidopsis Mutants Selected for Resistance to the Phytotoxin Coronatine Are Male Sterile, Insensitive to Methyl Jasmonate, and Resistant to a Bacterial Pathogen. Plant Cell 1994, 6, 751–759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Thaler, J.S.; Owen, B.; Higgins, V.J. The Role Of The Jasmonate Response in Plant Susceptibility to Diverse Pathogens With a Range of Lifestyles. Plant Physiol. 2004, 135, 530–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Li, L.; Zhao, Y.; Mccaig, B.C.; Wingerd, B.A.; Wang, J.; Whalon, M.E.; Pichersky, E.; Howe, G.A. The Tomato Homolog of Coronatine-Insensitive1 Is Required for the Maternal Control of Seed Maturation, Jasmonate-Signaled Defense Responses, and Glandular Trichome Development. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 126–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Landgraf, R.; Schaarschmidt, S.; Hause, B. Repeated Leaf Wounding Alters The Colonization of Medicago Truncatula Roots by Beneficial and Pathogenic Microorganisms. Plant Cell Environ. 2012, 35, 1344–1357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Hilou, A.; Zhang, H.; Franken, P.; Hause, B. Do Jasmonates Play A Role in Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Induced Local Bioprotection of Medicago truncatula against Root Rot Disease Caused by Aphanomyces Euteiches? Mycorrhiza 2014, 24, 45–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Uppalapati, S.R.; Marek, S.M.; Lee, H.K.; Nakashima, J.; Tang, Y.; Sledge, M.K.; Dixon, R.A.; Mysore, K.S. Global Gene Expression Profiling During Medicago Truncatula-Phymatotrichopsis Omnivora Interaction Reveals a Role for Jasmonic Acid, Ethylene, and the Flavonoid Pathway in Disease Development. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 7–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Kamphuis, L.G.; Williams, A.H.; Kuster, H.; Trengove, R.D.; Singh, K.B.; Oliver, R.P.; Ellwood, S.R. Phoma medicaginis Stimulates the Induction of the Octadecanoid and Phenylpropanoid Pathways in Medicago truncatula. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012, 13, 593–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Hause, B.; Schaarschmidt, S. The Role of Jasmonates in Mutualistic Symbioses between Plants and Soil-Born Microorganisms. Phytochemistry 2009, 70, 1589–1599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Van Der Ent, S.; Van Wees, S.C.M.; Pieterse, C.M.J. Jasmonate Signaling in Plant Interactions With Resistance-Inducing Beneficial Microbes. Phytochemistry 2009, 70, 1581–1588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  42. Ballare, C.L. Jasmonate-Induced Defenses: A Tale of Intelligence, Collaborators and Rascals. Trends Plant Sci. 2011, 16, 249–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Robert-Seilaniantz, A.; Grant, M.; Jones, J.D.G. Hormone Crosstalk in Plant Disease and Defense: More Than Just Jasmonate-Salicylate Antagonism. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2011, 49, 317–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Browse, J. Jasmonate Passes Muster: A Receptor and Targets for the Defense Hormone. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2009, 60, 183–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Wasternack, C.; Kombrink, E. Jasmonates: Structural Requirements for Lipid-Derived Signals Active in Plant Stress Responses and Development. Acs Chem. Biol. 2010, 5, 63–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Fonseca, S.; Chini, A.; Hamberg, M.; Adie, B.; Porzel, A.; Kramell, R.; Miersch, O.; Wasternack, C.; Solano, R. (+)-7-Iso-Jasmonoyl-l-Isoleucine Is the Endogenous Bioactive Jasmonate. Nat. Chem. Biol. 2009, 5, 344–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Cevik, V.; Kidd, B.N.; Zhang, P.; Hill, C.; Kiddle, S.; Denby, K.J.; Holub, E.B.; Cahill, D.M.; Manners, J.M.; Schenk, P.M.; et al. Mediator25 Acts as an Integrative Hub for the Regulation of Jasmonate-Responsive Gene Expression in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2012, 160, 541–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Campos, M.; Kang, J.-H.; Howe, G. Jasmonate-Triggered Plant Immunity. J. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 40, 657–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Devoto, A.; Ellis, C.; Magusin, A.; Chang, H.-S.; Chilcott, C.; Zhu, T.; Turner, J. Expression Profiling Reveals Coi1 to Be a Key Regulator of Genes Involved in Wound- and Methyl Jasmonate-Induced Secondary Metabolism, Defence, and Hormone Interactions. Plant. Mol. Biol. 2005, 58, 497–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Devoto, A.; Turner, J.G. Regulation of Jasmonate-Mediated Plant Responses in Arabidopsis. Ann. Bot. 2003, 92, 329–337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Rispail, N.; Rubiales, D. Identification of Sources of Quantitative Resistance to Fusarium oxysporum F. Sp. Medicaginis in Medicago truncatula. Plant Dis. 2014, 98, 667–673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Rispail, N.; Bani, M.; Rubiales, D. Resistance reaction of Medicago truncatula genotypes to Fusarium oxysporum: Effect of plant age, substrate and inoculation method. Crop Pasture Sci. 2015, 66, 506–515. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ramírez-Suero, M.; Khanshour, A.; Martinez, Y.; Rickauer, M. A Study on the Susceptibility of the Model Legume Plant Medicago truncatula to the Soil-Borne Pathogen Fusarium oxysporum. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2010, 126, 517–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Chatterjee, M.; Gupta, S.; Bhar, A.; Chakraborti, D.; Basu, D.; Das, S. Analysis of Root Proteome Unravels Differential Molecular Responses during Compatible and Incompatible Interaction between Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and Fusarium oxysporum F. Sp. Ciceri Race1 (Foc1). BMC Genom. 2014, 15, 949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Xue, R.; Wu, J.; Zhu, Z.; Wang, L.; Wang, X.; Wang, S.; Blair, M.W. Differentially Expressed Genes in Resistant and Susceptible Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Genotypes in Response to Fusarium oxysporum F. Sp. Phaseoli. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, E0127698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Journet, E.-P.; Van Tuinen, D.; Gouzy, J.; Crespeau, H.; Carreau, V.; Farmer, M.-J.; Niebel, A.; Schiex, T.; Jaillon, O.; Chatagnier, O.; et al. Exploring Root Symbiotic Programs in the Model Legume Medicago Truncatula Using Est Analysis. Nucleic Acids Res. 2002, 30, 5579–5592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Frugoli, J.; Harris, J. Medicago truncatula on the Move! Plant Cell 2001, 13, 458–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zhu, H.; Kim, D.J.; Baek, J.M.; Choi, H.K.; Ellis, L.C.; Kuester, H.; Mccombie, W.R.; Peng, H.M.; Cook, D.R. Syntenic Relationships Between Medicago truncatula and Arabidopsis Reveal Extensive Divergence of Genome Organization. Plant Physiol. 2003, 131, 1018–1026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Salzer, P.; Bonanomi, A.; Beyer, K.; Vogeli-Lange, R.; Aeschbacher, R.A.; Lange, J.; Wiemken, A.; Kim, D.; Cook, D.R.; Boller, T. Differential Expression of Eight Chitinase Genes in Medicago truncatula Roots during Mycorrhiza Formation, Nodulation, and Pathogen Infection. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2000, 13, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Ben, C.; Toueni, M.; Montanari, S.; Tardin, M.C.; Fervel, M.; Negahi, A.; Saint-Pierre, L.; Mathieu, G.; Gras, M.C.; Noel, D.; et al. Natural Diversity in the Model Legume Medicago Truncatula Allows Identifying Distinct Genetic Mechanisms Conferring Partial Resistance to Verticillium Wilt. J. Exp. Bot. 2013, 64, 317–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Medicago truncatula Genome Project. Available online: http://medicago.jcvi.org/medicago/index.php (accessed on 20 November 2015).
  62. Medicago truncatula Hapmap Project. Available online: http://medicagohapmap.org/ (accessed on 20 November 2015).
  63. Bell, C.J.; Dixon, R.A.; Farmer, A.D.; Flores, R.; Inman, J.; Gonzales, R.A.; Harrison, M.J.; Paiva, N.L.; Scott, A.D.; Weller, J.W.; et al. The Medicago Genome Initiative: A Model Legume Database. Nucleic Acids Res. 2001, 29, 114–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Medicago truncatula Gene Expression Atlas. Available online: http://mtgea.noble.org/v3/ (accessed on 20 November 2015).
  65. He, J.; Benedito, V.A.; Wang, M.; Murray, J.D.; Zhao, P.X.; Tang, Y.; Udvardi, M.K. The Medicago truncatula Gene Expression Atlas Web Server. BMC Bioinform. 2009, 10, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Benedito, V.A.; Torres-Jerez, I.; Murray, J.D.; Andriankaja, A.; Allen, S.; Kakar, K.; Wandrey, M.; Verdier, J.; Zuber, H.; Ott, T.; et al. A Gene Expression Atlas of the Model Legume Medicago truncatula. Plant J. 2008, 55, 504–513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Genevestigator. Available online: https://genevestigator.com/gv/ (accessed on 5 August 2015).
  68. Naoumkina, M.; Farag, M.A.; Sumner, L.W.; Tang, Y.; Liu, C.J.; Dixon, R.A. Different Mechanisms for Phytoalexin Induction by Pathogen and Wound Signals in Medicago Truncatula. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2007, 104, 17909–17915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Schenk, P.M.; Kazan, K.; Wilson, I.; Anderson, J.P.; Richmond, T.; Somerville, S.C.; Manners, J.M. Coordinated Plant Defense Responses in Arabidopsis Revealed by Microarray Analysis. Proc. Natil. Acad. Sci. USA 2000, 97, 11655–11660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Du, Z.; Zhou, X.; Ling, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Su, Z. Agrigo: A Go Analysis Toolkit for the Agricultural Community. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010, 38, W64–W70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Gao, L.-L.; Anderson, J.P.; Klingler, J.P.; Nair, R.M.; Edwards, O.R.; Singh, K.B. Involvement of the Octadecanoid Pathway in Bluegreen Aphid Resistance in Medicago Truncatula. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2007, 20, 82–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Tesfaye, M.; Silverstein, K.A.; Nallu, S.; Wang, L.; Botanga, C.J.; Gomez, S.K.; Costa, L.M.; Harrison, M.J.; Samac, D.A.; Glazebrook, J.; et al. Spatio-Temporal Expression Patterns of Arabidopsis thaliana And Medicago truncatula Defensin-Like Genes. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, E58992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  73. Tadege, M.; Wang, T.L.; Wen, J.; Ratet, P.; Mysore, K.S. Mutagenesis and Beyond! Tools for Understanding Legume Biology. Plant Physiol. 2009, 151, 978–984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  74. Ane, J.M.; Zhu, H.; Frugoli, J. Recent Advances in Medicago truncatula Genomics. Int. J. Plant Genomics 2008, 2008, 256597. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Carelli, M.; Calderini, O.; Panara, F.; Porceddu, A.; Losini, I.; Piffanelli, P.; Arcioni, S.; Scotti, C. Reverse Genetics in Medicago truncatula Using a Tilling Mutant Collection. Methods Mol. Biol. 2013, 1069, 101–118. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  76. Tadege, M.; Wen, J.; He, J.; Tu, H.; Kwak, Y.; Eschstruth, A.; Cayrel, A.; Endre, G.; Zhao, P.X.; Chabaud, M.; et al. Large-Scale Insertional Mutagenesis Using the Tnt1 Retrotransposon in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula. Plant J. 2008, 54, 335–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Penmetsa, R.V.; Cook, D.R. Production And Characterization of Diverse Developmental Mutants of Medicago truncatula. Plant Physiol. 2000, 123, 1387–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Le Signor, C.; Savois, V.; Aubert, G.; Verdier, J.; Nicolas, M.; Pagny, G.; Moussy, F.; Sanchez, M.; Baker, D.; Clarke, J.; et al. Optimizing Tilling Populations for Reverse Genetics in Medicago Truncatula. Plant Biotech. J. 2009, 7, 430–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Cheng, X.; Wang, M.; Lee, H.-K.; Tadege, M.; Ratet, P.; Udvardi, M.; Mysore, K.S.; Wen, J. An Efficient Reverse Genetics Platform in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula. New Phytol. 2014, 201, 1065–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Medicago truncatula Mutant Database. Available online: http://nedicago-nutant.noble.org/mutant/ (accessed on 20 November 2015).
  81. Epple, P.; Apel, K.; Bohlmann, H. Overexpression of an Endogenous Thionin Enhances Resistance of Arabidopsis against Fusarium oxysporum. Plant Cell 1997, 9, 509–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Chan, Y.L.; Prasad, V.; Sanjaya; Chen, K.H.; Liu, P.C.; Chan, M.T.; Cheng, C.P. Transgenic Tomato Plants Expressing an Arabidopsis Thionin (Thi2.1) Driven by Fruit-Inactive Promoter Battle against Phytopathogenic Attack. Planta 2005, 221, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Berrocal-Lobo, M.; Molina, A. Ethylene Response Factor 1 Mediates Arabidopsis Resistance to the Soilborne Fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2004, 17, 763–770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Anderson, J.P.; Singh, K.B. Interactions of Arabidopsis and M. truncatula with the Same Pathogens Differ in Dependence on Ethylene and Ethylene Response Factors. Plant Signal. Behav. 2011, 6, 551–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Feussner, I.; Wasternack, C. The Lipoxygenase Pathway. Annu. Review Plant Biol. 2002, 53, 275–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Shah, J.; Chaturvedi, R. Lipid Signals in Plant–Pathogen Interactions. In Annual Plant Reviews Volume 34: Molecular Aspects Of Plant Disease Resistance; Wiley-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2009; pp. 292–333. [Google Scholar]

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Thatcher, L.F.; Gao, L.-L.; Singh, K.B. Jasmonate Signalling and Defence Responses in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula—A Focus on Responses to Fusarium Wilt Disease. Plants 2016, 5, 11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants5010011

AMA Style

Thatcher LF, Gao L-L, Singh KB. Jasmonate Signalling and Defence Responses in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula—A Focus on Responses to Fusarium Wilt Disease. Plants. 2016; 5(1):11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants5010011

Chicago/Turabian Style

Thatcher, Louise F., Ling-Ling Gao, and Karam B. Singh. 2016. "Jasmonate Signalling and Defence Responses in the Model Legume Medicago truncatula—A Focus on Responses to Fusarium Wilt Disease" Plants 5, no. 1: 11. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/plants5010011

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop