Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2011:2011:160934.
doi: 10.1155/2011/160934. Epub 2011 Jul 14.

Differential gene expression in sugarcane in response to challenge by fungal pathogen Ustilago scitaminea revealed by cDNA-AFLP

You-Xiong Que  1 , Jian-Wei Lin, Xian-Xian Song, Li-Ping Xu, Ru-Kai Chen
Affiliations

Differential gene expression in sugarcane in response to challenge by fungal pathogen Ustilago scitaminea revealed by cDNA-AFLP

You-Xiong Que et al. J Biomed Biotechnol. 2011.

Abstract

Differential gene expression in sugarcane during sugarcane-Ustilago scitaminea interaction was conducted in a smut-resistant genotype. Using cDNA-AFLP along with silver staining, a total of 136 transcript-derived fragments (TDFs) were found to be differentially expressed in response to challenge by U. scitaminea. Forty TDFs, 34 newly induced plus six with obvious upregulated expression after infection, were sequenced and validated by RT-PCR analysis. These results demonstrated that the expression of 37 out of these TDFs in RT-PCR analysis was consistent with that in cDNA-AFLP analysis. Based on BlastX in NCBI, 28 TDFs were assumed to function in sugarcane under U. scitaminea stress. Analysis of expression profile of three TDFs revealed that they responded differently after infection with U. scitaminea, and the transcription was significantly enhanced. The response of two TDFs, SUC06 and SUC09, occurred before that of SUC10. This study enriches our knowledge of the molecular basis for sugarcane response to U. scitaminea infection.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
PAGE electrophoresis patterns of some cDNA-AFLP amplification products. Notes: primers of P1–P10 represent E-AAC/M-CAG, E-ACA/M-CAG, E-ACA/M-CTC, E-AAC/M-CTT, E-AGG/M-CTC, E-AAG/M-CAT, E-AAG/M-CTA, E-AGC/M-CAG, E-AGG/M-CAT, and E-AGG/M-CTG, respectively; a, b represent control group and treat group, respectively; 1–9 represent SUC09, SUC01, SUC34, SUC07, SUC20, SUC06, SUC10, SUC22, and SUC39, respectively; M represents molecular weight marker.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of RT-PCR validation of partial differential TDFs. Notes: M represents molecular weight marker; O, Tr, and Ck represent negative control, fungus infected, and control group, respectively; 1–9 represent SUC09, SUC01, SUC34, SUC07, SUC20, SUC06, SUC10, SUC22, and SUC39, respectively.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Expression profiling of three TDFs during sugarcane-U. scitaminea interaction based on RT-PCR analysis. Notes: (a) expression profiling of SUC06; (b) expression profiling of SUC09; (c) expression profiling of SUC10.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. J. W. Hoy, Hollier CA, Fontenot DB, Grelen LB. Incidence of sugarcane smut in Louisiana and its effects on yield. Plant Disease. 1986;70(1):59–60.
    1. Sandhu SA, Bhatti DS, Rattan BK. Extent of losses caused by red (Physalosporatucumane NSis Speg.) and smut (Ustilago scitaminea Syd.) Journal of Research (Punjab Agricultural University) 1969;6:341–344.
    1. Whittle AM. Yield loss in sugar-cane due to culmicolous smut infection. Tropical Agriculture. 1982;59(3):239–242.
    1. Lee-Lovick G. Smut of sugarcane-Ustilago scitaminea. Review of Plant Pathology. 1978;147:181–188.
    1. Chao CP, Hoy JW, Saxton AM, Martin FA. Heritability of resistance and repeatability of clone reactions to sugarcane smut in Louisiana. Phytopathology. 1990;80(7):622–627.

Publication types

MeSH terms

LinkOut - more resources