Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25743038›Full record

ArticleProtoplasma2015

Induction of host defences by Rhizobium during ineffective nodulation of pea (Pisum sativum L.) carrying symbiotically defective mutations sym40 (PsEFD), sym33 (PsIPD3/PsCYCLOPS) and sym42.

Kira A Ivanova, Anna V Tsyganova, Nicholas J Brewin, Igor A Tikhonovich, Viktor E Tsyganov

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Protoplasma, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Effects of Elevated Temperature onInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  5. Effects of Elevated Temperature onInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  6. Comparison of the Formation of Plant-Microbial Interface inInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2023
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. The Regulation of Pea (Frontiers in plant science · 2022
    Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Efficacy of a Plant-Microbe System:Frontiers in microbiology · 2020
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Symbiotic secrets.Protoplasma · 2019
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kira A IvanovaAll-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Podbelsky chaussee 3, Saint-Petersburg, Pushkin 8, 196608, Russia.
Anna V TsyganovaAll-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Podbelsky chaussee 3, Saint-Petersburg, Pushkin 8, 196608, Russia.
Nicholas J BrewinJohn Innes Centre, Norwich Research Park, Norwich, NR4 7UH, UK.
Igor A TikhonovichAll-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Podbelsky chaussee 3, Saint-Petersburg, Pushkin 8, 196608, Russia.
Viktor E TsyganovAll-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Podbelsky chaussee 3, Saint-Petersburg, Pushkin 8, 196608, Russia. tsyganov@arriam.spb.ru.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rhizobia are able to establish a beneficial interaction with legumes by forming a new organ, called the symbiotic root nodule, which is a unique ecological niche for rhizobial nitrogen fixation. Rhizobial infection has many similarities with pathogenic infection and induction of defence responses accompanies both interactions, but defence responses are induced to a lesser extent during rhizobial infection. However, strong defence responses may result from incompatible interactions between legumes and rhizobia due to a mutation in either macro- or microsymbiont. The aim of this research was to analyse different plant defence reactions in response to Rhizobium infection for several pea (Pisum sativum) mutants that result in ineffective symbiosis. Pea mutants were examined by histochemical and immunocytochemical analyses, light, fluorescence and transmission electron microscopy and quantitative real-time PCR gene expression analysis. It was observed that mutations in pea symbiotic genes sym33 (PsIPD3/PsCYCLOPS encoding a transcriptional factor) and sym40 (PsEFD encoding a putative negative regulator of the cytokinin response) led to suberin depositions in ineffective nodules, and in the sym42 there were callose depositions in infection thread (IT) and host cell walls. The increase in deposition of unesterified pectin in IT walls was observed for mutants in the sym33 and sym42; for mutant in the sym42, unesterified pectin was also found around degrading bacteroids. In mutants in the genes sym33 and sym40, an increase in the expression level of a gene encoding peroxidase was observed. In the genes sym40 and sym42, an increase in the expression levels of genes encoding a marker of hypersensitive reaction and PR10 protein was demonstrated. Thus, a range of plant defence responses like suberisation, callose and unesterified pectin deposition as well as activation of defence genes can be triggered by different pea single mutations that cause perception of an otherwise beneficial strain of Rhizobium as a pathogen.

Indexed as

Gene Expression Regulation, PlantMutationGenotypeGlucansImmunohistochemistryLipidsMicroscopy, Electron, TransmissionMicroscopy, FluorescenceNitrogen FixationPectinsPhenotypePisum sativumPlant ProteinsPlants, Genetically ModifiedReal-Time Polymerase Chain ReactionRhizobium leguminosarumcalloseGlucansLipidsPectinsPlant ProteinssuberinTranscription FactorsCalloseDefence responsePectinPisum sativumSuberinSymbiotic nodule

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.