Prerpints.org logo
Preprint
Review

Importance of Omics Approaches in Plant-Microbe Interactions in Plant Disease Control

Altmetrics

Downloads

211

Views

141

Comments

0

Submitted:

13 June 2023

Posted:

14 June 2023

You are already at the latest version

Alerts
Abstract
The concept of omics-based technological approaches has promoted translational research by integrating knowledge from diverse areas to understand their dynamics by exploring the molecular mechanisms underlying various processes paving the way for further improvements in the crops quality by providing sound knowledge on controlling plant diseases. This area is not profoundly investigated a decade back and hence this knowledge has become exceedingly important in modern times as it has got potential for being utilized in crop improvement programs. In this review, the contributions of different omics technologies including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics in understanding and materializing the ways involved in the plant pathogen interaction (PPI) is discussed. Furthermore, opportunities, challenges, and perspectives of omics linked to signaling mechanisms have also been highlighted that are significantly linked to plant-microbe interactions.
Keywords: 
Subject: Biology and Life Sciences  -   Agricultural Science and Agronomy

1. Introduction

The combat between pathogens and plants has been unending facing each other’s pressure constantly to triumph over the other while enduring the constantly changing environment as well (Swarupa et al., 2016; Kumar et al., 2021a; Ramlal et al., Unpublished (a,b)). Microbes grow and flourish below ground, above ground as well as inside plants, and at the same time, plants host different microbes naturally showing both kinds of impacts viz positive and negative (Imam et al., 2016; Sharma et al., 2020). Several of these microorganisms cause various diseases when either their immunity is activated late or not triggered at all in plants including agronomically important crops leading to enormous economic losses that severely compromise crop productivity and yield (Macho and Zipfel, 2014; Ellouze et al., 2020; Gorshkov and Tsers, 2022). The microbes and plants face each other in a number of ways, sometimes having mutualistic relationships, such as biocontrol agents (Kumar et al., 2021b), arbuscular mycorrhizal associations (Mishra et al., 2018; Ellouze et al., 2018) and also in various other detrimental roles since their origin, while some others remain neutral. The field of plant-microbe interactions has always been a fascinating and emerging area of research and still, the complexities of their interactions largely remain unidentified and unexplored.
With the technological advancement and inclusion of several sophisticated high-throughput techniques, the concept of ‘omics’ is being utilized in deciphering and unraveling the intricacies that are involved in plant-pathogen interactions (PPI) (Bhadauria, 2016; Gomez-Casati et al., 2016; Singh and Kothari, 2017). This term encompasses all the processes that exist in biological systems and covers all the fundamental processes including transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics along with other major omics that have proven to be helpful in unravelling the mysteries of complex processes underlying PPI. The omics-based approaches have led to the development and identification of genome-scale resources and promoted translational research by integrating knowledge to understand the PPI dynamics including the ecology of plant pathogens, molecular mechanisms and underlying principles of pathogenesis (Crandall et al., 2020). The field not only provided a means to investigate the related genomics, metagenomics, volatilomics, and spectranomics, but also worked out ways for improvement and development of resistance in crops and thereby proved to have an immense potential that can be utilized in crop breeding and improvement programs (Crandall et al., 2020). Simultaneously, this information on the characteristics of pathogenesis will provide useful insights on the emergence of diseases, ecology, and epidemiology of diseases, the occurrence of genetic changes, and underlying defensive mechanisms evolved in both plants and microbes because of co-evolution and their effective management practices (Macho and Zipfel, 2014; Ellouze et al., 2020; Crandall et al., 2020).
The current review provides an overview of the existing state of knowledge about the various branches of omics involved in identifying and elucidating the complexities of plant-pathogen interactions (PPI) and updates on the recent information that has been added to the various aspects of PPI currently form part of scientific discussion. Furthermore, the importance of omics-based approaches as applied to PPI in the light of recent researches are discussed that are supposed to unfold vistas for new research designs for effective management of plant diseases suited for commercial utilization. The various branches of omics are discussed as follows:
i. 
Genomics
The era of genomics started with the availability of genome sequences of the first two bacterial species in 1995 namely Mycoplasma genitalium (Fraser et al., 1995), and Haemophilus influenzae (Fleischmann et al., 1995), and simultaneously the first complete genome sequence for plant pathogenic bacteria, Xylella fastidiosa was made available in 2000 (Simpson et al., 2000). With the availability of such sequences, it was made possible for the researchers to dig more deeply into understanding the PP interactions and became a routinely and widely used laboratory methodology that aid in the understanding of their interactions (Xu and Wang, 2019). On a similar note, the availability of next or second (next-generation sequencing, NGS) and third-generation sequencing technologies is referred to as high-throughput DNA sequencing (HTS) approaches made (Xu and Wang, 2019; Aragona et al., 2022). So far, there are 126 plant pathogenic bacteria (Xu and Wang, 2019), and 191 fungal species whereas 61.3% of them cause diseases in food crops (Aylward et al., 2017) whose genome sequences are available. There are two primary components of genomics that play important role in identifying the ecology and health during plant-microbe interactions namely structural genomics which focuses on assigning and mapping the genes and markers onto the chromosomes and thereby constructs a physical map of the whole genome. While the other component, functional genomics integrates nucleotide (genomic) sequences with the transcriptomic information (transcripts produced by an organism) and proteomic data (encoded proteins) to describe the functions and interactions of a gene (Crandall et al., 2020). Furthermore, the other related fields include comparative and population genomics which involves the identification of conserved domains of structural motifs across the kingdoms and relates the functional aspects and phylogenomics describes the interrelations between species of a population and among different populations (Crandall et al., 2020). For instance, Wolfe and McDermott (1994) studied the population genetics of a pathosystem which included Erysiphe graminis f. sp. hordei that infect the wild population of barley (Horduem spontaneum K. Koch.) (Wolfe and McDermott, 1994).
With the availability of genomic sequences, expressed sequence tags (ESTs), and microarray-based expression profiling, the responses of the plant-pathogens interactions have been characterized and elucidated in a comprehensive manner (Wan et al., 2002). Baldwin et al. (1999) identified 117 genes that showed alteration of mRNA expression in maize 6 h after different treatments with the fungal pathogen Cochliobolus carbonum using the DNA microarray (Baldwin et al., 1999). Metagenomics is yet another powerful tool that is used for the identification of microbial communities from a sample containing various microbes in order to know their taxonomy and functional roles. Moreover, this method can be used to distinguish between symptomatic and non-symptomatic microbes therefore, can be helpful in the diagnosis of plant diseases (Aragona et al., 2022). For instance, using the RNA-seq of tomato as the reference, the root microbiota was analyzed (Chialva et al., 2019).
ii. 
Transcriptomics
Following the inception of functional genomics, transcriptomics is yet another ‘omics’ approach that boosted and revolutionized the understanding of the processes involved in PPI. For instance, various beneficial interactions like Trichoderma–Arabidopsis–Pseudomonas syringae & Piriformospora indica–barley–powdery and have found that the fungi as such have significantly no effects (in absence of pathogens) on the host until pathogens attack the hosts (Molitor et al., 2011; Brotman et al., 2012) and detrimental interactions such as Verticilium dahliae which infects roots of plants (Tan et al., 2009; Xu et al., 2011) or elicitation signaling upon recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs) with the involvement of defense-related hormones (jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, etc.) (Livaja et al., 2008; Schenk et al., 2012) during a bacterial attack in Arabidopsis have been analyzed using transcriptomics and observed that flagellin and lipopolysaccharide are common bacterial elicitors indicating both are involved in signaling transduction. In the case of herbivory, when Arabidopsis was fed with aphids and caterpillars, an array of genes was found to be both up-regulated and down-regulated (Schenk et al., 2012; Appel et al., 2014). Similar observations were found when a non-pathogenic root-colonizing bacterium, Pseudomonas induced systemic responses in Arabidopsis was obtained using transcriptomic data (Verhagen et al., 2007)
One of the subsets of this omics method is metatranscriptomics. It is an emerging field that explicitly focuses on characterizing the gene expression patterns displayed by microbial communities through sequencing of genes that are getting expressed. The widely used NGS platforms in metatranscriptomics analysis include the Genome Sequencer FLX system (Roche) and the Illumina Genome Analyzer IIx (Schenk et al., 2012). With the involvement of high throughput sequencing technology, it is made possible to understudy and identify isoforms, novel transcripts, alternative splice variants, and, as consequence, genomic variants using the whole transcriptome sequencing (Aragona et al., 2022) while bioinformatics provided an added advantage of analyzing the data simultaneously boosted to perform computational studies for understanding the PPI in more detail (Aragona et al., 2022).
iii. 
Proteomics
Techniques like mass spectrometry, electrospray ionization, and matrix-assisted laser desorption/ionization (MALDI) along with the gel- (2D & 3D) & non-gel-based (LC, MudPIT, etc.) methods have increased the amount of data and helped in understanding the interactions at a proteomic level (Mehta et al., 2008; Quirino et al., 2010). There are various receptors and kinases which are involved and trigger signaling cascade upon confrontation with pathogens. Kinases such as MAP, calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs), and receptor kinases (flagellin receptor FLS2) as soon as they perceive signals initiate downstream processes along with phosphorylation events (Mehta et al., 2008; Quirino et al., 2010).
iv. 
Epigenomics
Epigenetics is an emerging area of research yet has revealed immense potential by widening the base of the genetics and refers to the changes which are stimuli-triggered followed by gene expression arising independently of changes in the underlying DNA sequences through the modifications in DNA methylation, histones, DNA silencing through non-coding RNAs (ncRNAs) and chromatin-remodelling (Gomez-Diaz et al., 2012). Recently, it has been shown that plants have both kinds of abilities to modify their constitution and makeup through inheritance via genetic or epigenetic ways, thereby adapting to the changing environmental conditions (Arnholdt-Schmitt, 2004; Madlung and Comai, 2004; Takeda and Paszkowski, 2006; Boyko and Kovalchuk, 2011). Being the host-pathogens interactions are dynamic in nature, there has been certain gaps still in this area, in what ways or how the epigenetics regulate or function in case of PPIs. Gomez-Diaz et al. (2012) reviewed the epigenetic changes that are to be involved in the PPIs.
v. 
Metabolomics
Plant metabolism (primary and specialized) is itself a complex process involving numerous mechanisms to promote plant growth and development. Specialized metabolism is generally involved during the recovery process from abiotic and/or biotic stresses. Therefore, this omics-based approach has also tremendously assisted in knowing the PPIs involving the host & microbe mechanisms. In the traditional method, morphological pieces of evidence were used to identify and differentiate between susceptible/resistant and diseased/non-diseased (primary screening), while molecular analysis includes identification of callose deposition at the infection site, and analyzing defense-related molecules like reactive oxygen species (ROS), etc. (Castro-Moretti et al., 2020).
Metabolites perform different functions during the plant–pathogen interactions such as surveillance against pathogen attack, signal transduction, enzyme regulation, cell-to-cell signaling, and anti-microbial activity (Vinayavekhin et al., 2010; Castro-Moretti et al., 2020). understand the dynamics of chemical compositions and their roles during PPIs, metabolomics that deal with the metabolites of key importance in a reaction occurring inside the plants/crops under typical physiological condition has played a pivotal role in deciphering the PPI states of the plants (Castro-Moretti et al., 2020).
Table 1. Important metabolites involved in the plant-microbe interactions envisioned in the metabolomics contexts.
Table 1. Important metabolites involved in the plant-microbe interactions envisioned in the metabolomics contexts.
Role Molecule Function Secreted by References
Attack Coronatine Effector Pseudomonas syringae Nomura et al., 2005; Geng et al., 2012
phenylacetic acid Toxin Rhizoctonia solani Drizou et al., 2017
Spermine Interruption of ROS Heterodera schachtii Li et al., 2019
Sphingolipids Required for appresorium Magnaporthe oryzae Hu et al., 2018
extracellular polysaccharides virulence factor Ralstonia solanacearum Milling et al, 2011
Putrescine virulence factor Lowe-Power et al., 2017
toxA Toxin Pyreniphora tritici-repentis Manning et al, 2009
Daidzein and genistein Growth Soybean (attracts Pseudomsonas sojae) Morris et al., 1998
Cochliophilin A Growth Soybean (attracts Aphanomyces cochlioides) Tahara et al., 2001
Defence Ethylene cell signaling against rice blast disease Rice Helliwell et al., 2016, Yang et al., 2017; Tezuka et al., 2019
methyl jasmonate
salicylic acid
quinic acid defense against bacterial wilt Tomato Puupponen-Pimja et al., 2001; Koutelidakis et al., 2016; Zeiss et al., 2019; Wang et al., 2019
eriodictyol, kaempferol
Hexoses
feruloyl-serotonin
R-linalool defense against insects Maize Tolosa et al., 2019; Huff et al., 2019
(Z)-3-hexenyl propionate defense against Pseudomonas syringae Tomato López-Gresa et al., 2018
(Z)-3-hexenyl butyrate
Camalexin defense against Phytophthora brassicae Arabidopsis Schlaeppi and Mauch, 2010; Buxdorf et al., 2013
indole glucosinolates defense against Alternaria brassicola
4-methoxyxyclobrassinin defense against Plasmodiophora brassicae Canola Pedras et al., 2008
Sarcotoxin Defense against canker Transgenic citrus do Prado Apparecido et al., 2017
vi. 
Effectoromics from host perspective:
Effectoromics is a specialized omics category which is based on the hosts as they secrete effector molecules against the invading pathogens and microbes. It is a high-throughput functional genomics technique that uses effectors to bait to detect and identify the R genes from the germplasm of plants and has proven a potent contribution to modern resistance breeding (Du and Vleeshouwers, 2014: Nejat et al., 2017). Du and Vleeshouwers, (2014) have summarized the advantages of the technique for identifying and detecting the R genes in plants. One of the serious diseases in wheat affecting severely and resulting in huge crop loss is the Fusarium head blight (FHB) caused by F. graminearum and F. culmorum. This omics was applied to uncover the nucleotide-binding site leucine-rich repeat (NBS-LRR) class of R genes of potato and Arabidopsis (Gorash et al., 2021).
Several post translational modifications of histones (Table 2) that include methylation, acetylation and others have been reviewed by Pfluger and Wagner (2007), which are effected by the action of exogenous (environmental) factors that include also pathogens (Pfluger and Wagner, 2007) and especially bacterial pathogens (Hamon and Cossart, 2008). Similarly, Ramirez-Prado et al. (2018) and Perrone and Mertinelli, (2020) have reviewed epigenetic changes such as chromatin modifiers and modifications with their physiological responses involved in the PPIs (Ramirez-Prado et al., 2018; Perrone and Mertinelli, 2020). Lai et al. (2022) have reviewed the chromatin modification of the filamentous fungal pathogens in plants and insects (Lai et al., 2022), key in plant pathogenesis. An omics-based approach in this direction will invariably open up more diverse vistas of knowledge on the mechanism of plant pathogenesis and allow scientific intervention to manipulate disease progression towards complete control. Also, biosafety measures and ethical issues related to the omics in PPIs are vividly explained (Sharma et al., 2021) that add value to these being adopted in field trials.
Table 2. Various aspects of histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) are described that provide practical cues to our understanding of histone PTMs during plant-microbe interactions.
Table 2. Various aspects of histone post-translational modifications (PTMs) are described that provide practical cues to our understanding of histone PTMs during plant-microbe interactions.
Histone modifications Host Pathogen Function during plant-host pathogenesis Method of identification Referenceswyxwyx
H3K9 (dimethylated; H3K27me2)wyxwyxH4K12ac Phaseolus vulgaris L Uromyces appendiculatus Differential expression of genes upon infection thereby indicating regulatory functions. ChIP and RNA-Seq Ayyappan et al., 2015
H2BK11, H3K14, H3K18, and H3K27 acetylations Wheat Pseudomonas piscium and Fusarium graminearum Deacetylation of modifications of acetylation in fungal growth, virulence, and mycotoxin biosynthesis and in bacterium as well In vitro acetylation assay Chen et al., 2018
H3K27wyxwyx(trimethylated; H3K27me3) Oryza sativa cv. YT16 Magnaporthe oryzae wild type strain Guy11 (French Guiana) Down and up-regulation of many genes upon infection with the pathogen in the host thereby indicating regulatory functions. Multi-omics approach and molecular genetics (chromatin immunoprecipitation sequencing(ChIP-Seq) and RNA sequencing (RNA-Seq) Zhang et al., 2021
H3K9ac, H3K9me2, and H3K27me3 Oryza sativa Meloidogyne graminicola Differential expression of genes upon infection and targeting specifically H3K9. ChIP and RNA-Seq Atighi et al., 2020
vii. 
Conclusions and future directions
Further intensive studies are required in understanding the plant-microbe interactions using omics-dependent approaches obtained from the branches of genomics, transcriptomics, and metabolomics along with other methods to identify specific interactions and unravelling complexities involved deep within them, also elucidating knowledge on metabolites that are involved in key biological processes, such as mutualist recruitment, pathogen suppression, and immune signaling. With the advent of omics along with the inclusion of NGS and HTS technologies supplemented with computation and bioinformatics analyses, the rich plant microbes plethora has become easier to be deciphered and still needs to be explored in order to align future studies on a deeper understanding of plant immunity to facilitate the development of innovative approaches for crop protections, improvements, and breeding programs. Not only these techniques have boosted the research in understanding the interactions among the plants with their unwelcomed guests but also opened new scope and provided novel tools for assisting in plant breeding programs. The next decade will surely witness a dramatic surge of new discoveries found using these omics-based technologies in plant-microbe interactions. Role of epigenetics needs to be explored extensively that can lead to not only opening up new mechanisms of disease progression but also their complete control strategies, thus having better potential for plant disease management.
While addressing the issues that challenges this area more focuss needs to be given to the studies directed on the subject of metabolites of hosts (plants) and pathogens (bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, viruses etc.) that need better methods for their identification and data obtained on them be integrated with the omics data gathered from other aspects. All these are important and require hands on skills in handling and currently, there are scarcity of trained personnel in this area and adequate software, the areas that can be worked upon for future technical developments for establishing better omics datasets in future.

Author Contributions

A.R.: Original Draft, Reference collection and Table 2 preparation;. A.R., A.N., C.K and R.K: Reviewing and Editing of the Original Draft; J.K and S.V: Reviewing, Editing and writing conclusions, Funding acquisition to pay for publication charges; V.M.: Conceptualization, Reviewing and Editing, Overseeing the manuscript for publication.

Funding

The publication charges are paid from the funds of Bangalore Bioinnovation Centre, Karnataka Innovation and Technology Society (KITS), Department of Electronics, IT, BT and S&T, Government of Karnataka, India.

Ethical Approval

Not applicable.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful to the Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Pusa, New Delhi, for providing the library facility and the Bangalore Bioinnovation Centre, Karanataka Innovation and Technology Society, Department of Electronics, IT, BT and S&T, Government of Karmataka, India, Department of Biotechnology, Government of India for funding towards the payment of APC.

Competing Interests

The authors declare no competing interests exist.

References

  1. Appel, H.M.; Fescemyer, H.; Ehlting, J.; Weston, D.; Rehrig, E.; Joshi, T.; Schultz, J. Transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to chewing and sucking insect herbivores. Frontiers in plant science 2014, 5, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Aragona, M.; Haegi, A.; Valente, M.T.; Riccioni, L.; Orzali, L.; Vitale, S.; Infantino, A. New-Generation Sequencing Technology in Diagnosis of Fungal Plant Pathogens: A Dream Comes True? Journal of Fungi 2022, 8, 737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Arnholdt-Schmitt, B. Stress-induced cell reprogramming. A role for global genome regulation? Plant physiology 2004, 136, 2579–2586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Atighi, M.R.; Verstraeten, B.; De Meyer, T.; Kyndt, T. Genome-wide shifts in histone modifications at early stage of rice infection with Meloidogyne graminicola. Molecular Plant Pathology 2021, 22, 440–455. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Aylward, J.; Steenkamp, E.T.; Dreyer, L.L.; Roets, F.; Wingfield, B.D.; Wingfield, M.J. A plant pathology perspective of fungal genome sequencing. IMA fungus 2017, 8, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Ayyappan, V.; Kalavacharla, V.; Thimmapuram, J.; Bhide, K.P.; Sripathi, V.R.; Smolinski, T.G.; Kingham, B. Genome-wide profiling of histone modifications (H3K9me2 and H4K12ac) and gene expression in rust (Uromyces appendiculatus) inoculated common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). PLoS One 2015, 10, e0132176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Baldwin, D.; Crane, V.; Rice, D. A comparison of gel-based, nylon filter and microarray techniques to detect differential RNA expression in plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol 1999, 2, 96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bhadauria, V. OMICS in plant disease resistance. Current Issues in Molecular Biology 2016, 19, 1–2. [Google Scholar]
  9. Boyko, A.; Kovalchuk, I. Genetic and epigenetic effects of plant–pathogen interactions: an evolutionary perspective. Molecular Plant 2011, 4, 1014–1023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Brotman, Y.; Lisec, J.; Méret, M.; Chet, I.; Willmitzer, L.; Viterbo, A. Transcript and metabolite analysis of the Trichoderma-induced systemic resistance response to Pseudomonas syringae in Arabidopsis thaliana. Microbiology 2012, 158, 139–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Buxdorf, K.; Ya_e, H.; Barda, O.; Levy, M. The effects of glucosinolates and their breakdown products on necrotrophic fungi. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e70771. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Castro-Moretti, F.R.; Gentzel, I.N.; Mackey, D.; Alonso, A.P. Metabolomics as an emerging tool for the study of plant–pathogen interactions. Metabolites 2020, 10, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Chen, Y.; Wang, J.; Yang, N.; Wen, Z.; Sun, X.; Chai, Y.; Ma, Z. Wheat microbiome bacteria can reduce virulence of a plant pathogenic fungus by altering histone acetylation. Nature Communications 2018, 9, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Chialva, M.; Ghignone, S.; Novero, M.; Hozzein, W.N.; Lanfranco, L.; Bonfante, P. Tomato RNA-seq data mining reveals the taxonomic and functional diversity of root-associated microbiota. Microorganisms 2019, 8, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Crandall, S.G.; Gold, K.M.; Jiménez-Gasco, M.D.M.; Filgueiras, C.C.; Willett, D.S. A multi-omics approach to solving problems in plant disease ecology. PLoS One 2020, 15, e0237975. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. do Prado Apparecido, R.; Carlos, E.F.; Lião, L.M.; Vieira, L.G.E.; Alcantara, G.B.; Li??o, L.M.; Vieira, L.G.E.; Alcantara, G.B.; Lião, L.M.; Vieira, L.G.E.; et al. NMR-based metabolomics of transgenic and non-transgenic sweet orange reveals different responses in primary metabolism during citrus canker development. Metabolomics 2017, 13, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Drizou, F.; Graham, N.S.; Bruce, T.J.A.; Ray, R.V. Development of high-throughput methods to screen disease caused by Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-1 in oilseed rape. Plant Methods 2017, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Du, J.; Vleeshouwers, V.G.A.A. The Do’s and Don’ts of Effectoromics. In Plant-Pathogen Interactions. Methods in Molecular Biology; Birch, P., Jones, J., Bos, J., Eds.; Humana Press: Totowa, NJ, 2014; Volume 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Ellouze, W.; Hamel, C.; Singh, A.K.; Mishra, V.; DePauw, R.M.; Knox, R.E. Abundance of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal taxa associated with the roots and rhizosphere soil of different durum wheat cultivars in the Canadian prairies. Canadian journal of microbiology 2018, 64, 527–536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ellouze, W.; Mishra, V.; Howard, R.J.; Ling, K.S.; Zhang, W. Preliminary study on the control of cucumber green mottle mosaic virus in commercial greenhouses using agricultural disinfectants and resistant cucumber varieties. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Fleischmann, R.D.; Adams, M.D.; White, O.; Clayton, R.A.; Kirkness, E.F.; Kerlavage, A.R.; Venter, J.C. Whole-genome random sequencing and assembly of Haemophilus influenzae Rd. Science 1995, 269, 496–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Fraser, C.M.; Gocayne, J.D.; White, O.; Adams, M.D.; Clayton, R.A.; Fleischmann, R.D.; Venter, J.C. The minimal gene complement of Mycoplasma genitalium. Science 1995, 270, 397–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Geng, X.; Cheng, J.; Gangadharan, A.; Mackey, D. The coronatine toxin of Pseudomonas syringae is a multifunctional suppressor of Arabidopsis defense. Plant Cell 2012, 24, 4763–4774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gomez-Casati, D.F.; Pagani, M.A.; Busi, M.V.; Bhadauria, V. Omics approaches for the engineering of pathogen resistant plants. Current Issues in Molecular Biology 2016, 19, 89–98. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gómez-Díaz, E.; Jordà, M.; Peinado, M.A.; Rivero, A. Epigenetics of host–pathogen interactions: the road ahead and the road behind. PLoS pathogens 2012, 8, e1003007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Gorash, A.; Armonienė, R.; Kazan, K. Can effectoromics and loss-of-susceptibility be exploited for improving Fusarium head blight resistance in wheat? The Crop Journal 2021, 9, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Gorshkov, V.; Tsers, I. Plant susceptible responses: The underestimated side of plant–pathogen interactions. Biological Reviews 2022, 97, 45–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hamon, M.A.; Cossart, P. Histone modifications and chromatin remodeling during bacterial infections. Cell host & microbe 2008, 4, 100–109. [Google Scholar]
  29. Helliwell, E.E.; Wang, Q.; Yang, Y. Ethylene biosynthesis and signaling is required for rice immune response and basal resistance against Magnaporthe oryzae infection. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2016, 29, 831–843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hu, W.; Pan, X.; Li, F.; Dong, W. UPLC-QTOF-MS metabolomics analysis revealed the contributions of metabolites to the pathogenesis of Rhizoctonia solani strain AG-1-IA. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192486. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Huff, R.M.; Pitts, R.J. An odorant receptor from Anopheles gambiae that demonstrates enantioselectivity to the plant volatile, linalool. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0225637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Imam, J.; Singh, P.K.; Shukla, P. Plant microbe interactions in post genomic era: perspectives and applications. Frontiers in microbiology 2016, 7, 1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Koutelidakis, A.E.; Andritsos, N.D.; Kabolis, D.; Kapsokefalou, M.; Drosinos, E.H.; Komaitis, M. Antioxidant and antimicrobial properties of tea and aromatic plant extracts against bacterial foodborne pathogens: A comparative evaluation. Curr. Top. Nutraceutical Res. 2016, 14, 133–142. [Google Scholar]
  34. Kumar, J.; Ramlal, A.; Kumar, K.; Rani, A.; Mishra, V. Signaling Pathways and Downstream Effectors of Host Innate Immunity in Plants. International Journal of Molecular Sciences 2021, 22, 9022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kumar, J.; Ramlal, A.; Mallick, D.; Mishra, V. An Overview of Some Biopesticides and Their Importance in Plant Protection for Commercial Acceptance. Plants. 2021, 10, 1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lai, Y.; Wang, L.; Zheng, W.; Wang, S. Regulatory Roles of Histone Modifications in Filamentous Fungal Pathogens. Journal of Fungi 2022, 8, 565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Li, S.; Peng, X.; Wang, Y.; Hua, K.; Xing, F.; Zheng, Y.; Liu, W.; Sun, W.; Wei, S. The effector AGLIP1 in Rhizoctonia solani AG1 IA triggers cell death in plants and promotes disease development through inhibiting PAMP-triggered immunity in Arabidopsis thaliana. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Livaja, M.; Zeidler, D.; Von Rad, U.; Durner, J. Transcriptional responses of Arabidopsis thaliana to the bacteria-derived PAMPs harpin and lipopolysaccharide. Immunobiology 2008, 213, 161–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. López-Gresa, M.P.; Payá, C.; Ozáez, M.; Rodrigo, I.; Conejero, V.; Klee, H.; Bellés, J.M.; Lisón, P. A new role for green leaf volatile esters in tomato stomatal defense against Pseudomonas syringe pv. tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lowe-Power, T.M.; Hendrich, C.G.; von Roepenack-Lahaye, E.; Li, B.; Wu, D.; Mitra, R.; Dalsing, B.L.; Ricca, P.; Naidoo, J.; Cook, D.; et al. Metabolomics of tomato xylem sap during bacterial wilt reveals Ralstonia solanacearum produces abundant putrescine, a metabolite that accelerates wilt disease. Environ. Microbiol. 2017, 20, 1330–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Macho, A.P.; Zipfel, C. Plant PRRs and the activation of innate immune signaling. Molecular cell 2014, 54, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Madlung, A.; Comai, L. The effect of stress on genome regulation and structure. Annals of Botany 2004, 94, 481–495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Manning, V.A.; Chu, A.L.; Steeves, J.E.; Wolpert, T.J.; Ciu_etti, L.M. A host-selective toxin of Pyrenophora tritici-repentis, Ptr ToxA, induces photosystem changes and reactive oxygen species accumulation in sensitive wheat. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 665–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Mehta, A.; Brasileiro, A.C.; Souza, D.S.; Romano, E.; Campos, M.A.; Grossi-de-Sá, M.F.; Rocha, T.L. Plant–pathogen interactions: what is proteomics telling us? The FEBS journal 2008, 275, 3731–3746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Milling, A.; Babujee, L.; Allen, C. Ralstonia solanacearum extracellular polysaccharide is a specific elicitor of defense responses in wilt-resistant tomato plants. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e15853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Mishra, V.; Ellouze, W.; Howard, R.J. Utility of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi for improved production and disease mitigation in organic and hydroponic greenhouse crops. J. Hortic 2018, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Molitor, A.; Zajic, D.; Voll, L.M.; Pons-Kühnemann, J.; Samans, B.; Kogel, K.H.; Waller, F. Barley leaf transcriptome and metabolite analysis reveals new aspects of compatibility and Piriformospora indica–mediated systemic induced resistance to powdery mildew. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 2011, 24, 1427–1439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Morris, P.F.; Bone, E.; Tyler, B.M. Chemotropic and contact responses of phytophthora sojae hyphae to soybean isoflavonoids and artificial substrates. Plant Physiology 1998, 117, 1171–1178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Nejat, N.; Rookes, J.; Mantri, N.L.; Cahill, D.M. Plant–pathogen interactions: toward development of next-generation disease-resistant plants. Critical reviews in biotechnology 2017, 37, 229–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Nomura, K.; Melotto, M.; He, S.Y. Suppression of host defense in compatible plant-Pseudomonas syringae interactions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2005, 8, 361–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Pedras, M.S.C.; Zheng, Q.-A.; Strelkov, S. Metabolic changes in roots of the oilseed canola infected with the biotroph Plasmodiophora brassicae: Phytoalexins and phytoanticipins. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 9949–9961. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Perrone, A.; Martinelli, F. Plant stress biology in epigenomic era. Plant Science 2020, 294, 110376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Pfluger, J.; Wagner, D. Histone modifications and dynamic regulation of genome accessibility in plants. Current opinion in plant biology 2007, 10, 645–652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Puupponen-Pimiä, R.; Nohynek, L.; Meier, C.; Kähkönen,M. ; Heinonen,M.; Hopia, A.; Oksman-Caldentey, K.M. Antimicrobial properties of phenolic compounds from berries. J. Appl. Microbiol. 2001, 90, 494–507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Quirino, B.F.; Candido, E.S.; Campos, P.F.; Franco, O.L.; Krüger, R.H. Proteomic approaches to study plant–pathogen interactions. Phytochemistry 2010, 71, 351–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Ramirez-Prado, J.S.; Piquerez, S.J.; Bendahmane, A.; Hirt, H.; Raynaud, C.; Benhamed, M. Modify the histone to win the battle: chromatin dynamics in plant–pathogen interactions. Frontiers in Plant Science 2018, 9, 355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Ramlal, A.; Sarma, R.; Rani, A.; Nautiyal, A.; Mishra, V. (unpublished) (a) Plant-virus interactions in plant innate immunity. In: Gaur, R. K. and Patil, B.L (eds) Plant RNA Viruses: Detection, Diversity and Management. Elsevier (accepted, under production).
  58. Ramlal, A.; Alok, V.; Chaurasia, D.; Jindal, A. (unpublished) (b). Pathogenic microorganisms: Diversity and their metabolic profiling. In: Reddy, B.; Kumar, A., Reddy, M.K. & Mehta, S (eds) Microbial genome technology and metabolomics: A 21st century stature.
  59. Schenk, P.M.; Carvalhais, L.C.; Kazan, K. Unraveling plant–microbe interactions: can multi-species transcriptomics help? Trends in biotechnology 2012, 30, 177–184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Schlaeppi, K.; Mauch, F. Indolic secondary metabolites protect Arabidopsis from the oomycete pathogen Phytophthora brassicae. Plant signaling & behavior 2010, 5, 1099–1101. [Google Scholar]
  61. Sharma, M.; Sudheer, S.; Usmani, Z.; Rani, R.; Gupta, P. Deciphering the omics of plant-microbe interaction: Perspectives and new insights. Current Genomics 2020, 21, 343–362. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sharma, P.K.; Rai, A.K.; Sharma, N.K. Safety and Ethics in Omics Biology. In Omics Technologies for Sustainable Agriculture and Global Food Security; Kumar, A., Kumar, R., Shukla, P., Pandey, M.K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2021; Volume 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Simpson, A.J.G.; Reinach, F.D.C.; Arruda, P.; Abreu, F.D.; Acencio, M.; Alvarenga, R.; Setubal, J.C. The genome sequence of the plant pathogen Xylella fastidiosa. Nature 2000, 406, 151–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Singh, R.P.; Kothari, R. The omics era and host microbiomes. In Understanding Host-Microbiome Interactions-An Omics Approach; Springer: Singapore, 2017; pp. 3–12. [Google Scholar]
  65. Swarupa, V.; Pavitra, K.; Shivashankara, K.S.; Ravishankar, K.V. Omics-Driven Approaches in Plant–Microbe Interaction. In Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity; Singh, D., Singh, H., Prabha, R., Eds.; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Tahara, S.; Ohkawa, K.; Takayama, T.; Ogawa, Y. The third naturally occurring attractant toward zoospores of phytopathogenic Aphanomyces cochlioides from the Spinacia oleracea host plant. Bioscience, Biotechnology, and Biochemistry 2001, 65, 1755–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Takeda, S.; Paszkowski, J. DNA methylation and epigenetic inheritance during plant gametogenesis. Chromosoma 2006, 115, 27–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Tan, K.C.; Ipcho, S.V.; Trengove, R.D.; Oliver, R.P.; Solomon, P.S. Assessing the impact of transcriptomics, proteomics and metabolomics on fungal phytopathology. Molecular Plant Pathology 2009, 10, 703–715. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Tezuka, D.; Kawamata, A.; Kato, H.; Saburi,W. ; Mori, H.; Imai, R. The rice ethylene response factor OsERF83 positively regulates disease resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 263–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Tolosa, T.A.; Tamiru, A.; Midega, C.A.O.; Van Den Berg, J.; Birkett, M.A.; Woodcock, C.M.; Bruce, T.J.A.; Kelemu, S.; Pickett, J.A.; Khan, Z.R. Molasses grass induces direct and indirect defense responses in neighbouring maize plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 2019, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Verhagen, B.W.; Glazebrook, J.; Zhu, T.; Chang, H.S.; Van Loon, L.C.; Pieterse, C.M. The transcriptome of rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 2004, 17, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Vinayavekhin, N.; Saghatelian, A. Untargeted metabolomics. In Current Protocols in Molecular Biology; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar]
  73. Wan, J.; Dunning, M.F.; Bent, A.F. Probing plant-pathogen interactions and downstream defense signaling using DNA microarrays. Functional & integrative genomics 2002, 2, 259–273. [Google Scholar]
  74. Wang, G.; Kong, J.; Cui, D.; Zhao, H.; Niu, Y.; Xu, M.; Jiang, G.; Zhao, Y.; Wang, W. Resistance against Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato depends on the methionine cycle and the -aminobutyric acid metabolic pathway. Plant J. 2019, 97, 1032–1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Wolfe, M.S.; McDermott, J.M. Population genetics of plant pathogen interactions: the example of the Erysiphe graminis-Hordeum vulgare pathosystem. Annual review of phytopathology 1994, 32, 89–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Xu, J.; Wang, N. Where are we going with genomics in plant pathogenic bacteria? Genomics 2019, 111, 729–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Xu, L.; Zhu, L.; Tu, L.; Liu, L.; Yuan, D.; Jin, L.; et al. Lignin metabolism has a central role in the resistance of cotton to the wilt fungus Verticillium dahliae as revealed by RNA-Seq-dependent transcriptional analysis and histochemistry. Journal of experimental botany 2011, 62, 5607–5621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yang, C.; Li, W.; Cao, J.; Meng, F.; Yu, Y.; Huang, J.; Jiang, L.; Liu, M.; Zhang, Z.; Chen, X.; et al. Activation of ethylene signaling pathways enhances disease resistance by regulating ROS and phytoalexin production in rice. Plant J. 2017, 89, 338–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zeiss, D.R.; Mhlongo, M.I.; Tugizimana, F.; Steenkamp, P.A.; Dubery, I.A. Metabolomic profiling of the host response of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) following infection by Ralstonia solanacearum. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 3945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Zhang, W.; Huang, J.; Cook, D.E. Histone modification dynamics at H3K27 are associated with altered transcription of in planta induced genes in Magnaporthe oryzae. PLoS genetics 2021, 17, e1009376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Copyright: This open access article is published under a Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, which permit the free download, distribution, and reuse, provided that the author and preprint are cited in any reuse.
Prerpints.org logo

Preprints.org is a free preprint server supported by MDPI in Basel, Switzerland.

facebook logotwitter logolinkedin logo
MDPI Initiatives
Important Links
Subscribe

Disclaimer

Terms of Use

Privacy Policy

© 2024 MDPI (Basel, Switzerland) unless otherwise stated