Advertisement

Plant Molecular Biology

, Volume 97, Issue 1–2, pp 57–72 | Cite as

Global gene regulation in tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum) responding to vector (Bactericera cockerelli) feeding and pathogen (‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’) infection

  • Ordom Brian Huot
  • Julien Gad Levy
  • Cecilia Tamborindeguy
Article

Abstract

Key message

Different responses are elicited in tomato plants by Bactericera cockerelli harboring or not the pathogen ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’.

Abstract

Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ (Lso) has emerged as a major pathogen of crops worldwide. This bacterial pathogen is transmitted by Bactericera cockerelli, the tomato psyllid, to solanaceous crops. In this study, the transcriptome profiles of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) exposed to B. cockerelli infestation and Lso infection were evaluated at 1, 2 and 4 weeks following colonization and/or infection. The plant transcriptional responses to Lso-negative B. cockerelli were different than plant responses to Lso-positive B. cockerelli. The comparative transcriptome analyses of plant responses to Lso-negative B. cockerelli revealed the up-regulation of genes associated with plant defenses regardless of the time-point. In contrast, the general responses to Lso-positive B. cockerelli and Lso-infection were temporally different. Infected plants down-regulated defense genes at week one while delayed the up-regulation of the defense genes until weeks two and four, time points in which early signs of disease development were also detected in the transcriptional response. For example, infected plants regulated carbohydrate metabolism genes which could be linked to the disruption of sugar distribution usually associated with Lso infection. Also, infected plants down-regulated photosynthesis-related genes potentially resulting in plant chlorosis, another symptom associated with Lso infection. Overall, this study highlights that tomato plants induce different sets of genes in response to different stages of B. cockerelli infestation and Lso infection. This is the first transcriptome study of tomato responses to B. cockerelli and Lso, a first step in the direction of finding plant defense genes to enhance plant resistance.

Keywords

Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum Bactericera cockerelli Comparative transcriptomes Plant–insect interaction Plant–pathogen interaction Zebra chip 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This material is based upon work supported by the NIFA-AFRI Grant 2012-67013-19431. Ordom Huot is supported by the Texas A&M University Diversity Fellowship and the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship under Grant No. 1252521. We thank Dr. Azucena Mendoza, Dr. Kyle Harrison, Dr. Elizabeth Pierson and Dr. Punya Nachappa for their assistance.

Author contributions

OH, JL and CT designed the experiments. OH performed the experiments and analyzed data. OH, JL and CT wrote the manuscript.

Supplementary material

11103_2018_724_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (7 kb)
Supplementary Document 1 List of parameters used for the bioinformatics analyses. Supplementary material 1 (PDF 6 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (39 kb)
Supplementary Table 1 Primers for genes of interest. Supplementary material 2 (PDF 39 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM3_ESM.pdf (18 kb)
Supplementary Table 2 Summary of the transcriptomic data. Reads were mapped to the Solanum lycopersicum genome. C: control plants. P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli. L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. C and P plants tested negative for Lso. L plants tested positive for Lso. T1, T2, and T3 represent one, two, and four weeks after infestation, respectively. * mark the libraries sequenced with 125PE. Supplementary material 3 (PDF 18 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM4_ESM.pdf (127 kb)
Supplementary Table 3 List of significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in C vs P comparison. Time represents time point as indicated in methods. q-value indicates the adjusted p-value after the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparison. C: control plants and P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli. C and P plants tested negative for Lso. Supplementary material 4 (PDF 126 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM5_ESM.pdf (217 kb)
Supplementary Table 4 List of significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in C vs L comparison. Time represents time point as indicated in the method. q-value indicates the adjusted p-value after the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparison. C: control plants and L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. C plants tested negative for Lso. L plants tested positive for Lso. Supplementary material 5 (PDF 216 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM6_ESM.pdf (191 kb)
Supplementary Table 5 List of significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in P vs L comparison. Time represents time point as indicated in the method. q-value indicates the adjusted p-value after the Benjamini-Hochberg correction for multiple comparison. P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli and L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. P plants tested negative for Lso. L plants tested positive for Lso. Supplementary material 6 (PDF 191 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM7_ESM.pdf (70 kb)
Supplementary Table 6 Significantly enriched gene ontology (GO) terms associated with the up- and down-regulated genes in the C vs P comparative transcriptomes. C: control plants. P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli. NA = not applicable. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Holm-Bonferroni method. Biological process (BP). Cellular component (CC). Molecular function (MF). Supplementary material 7 (PDF 70 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM8_ESM.pdf (55 kb)
Supplementary Table 7 Significantly enriched gene ontology (GO) terms associated with the up- and down-regulated genes in the C vs L comparative transcriptomes. C: control plants. L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. NA = not applicable. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Holm-Bonferroni method. Biological process (BP). Cellular component (CC). Molecular function (MF). Supplementary material 8 (PDF 55 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM9_ESM.pdf (52 kb)
Supplementary Table 8 Significantly enriched gene ontology (GO) terms associated with the up- and down-regulated genes in the P vs L comparative transcriptomes. P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli. L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. NA = not applicable. P-value was adjusted for multiple comparisons by the Holm-Bonferroni method. Biological process (BP). Cellular component (CC). Molecular function (MF). Supplementary material 9 (PDF 51 KB)
11103_2018_724_MOESM10_ESM.pdf (98 kb)
Supplementary Table 9 List of significantly differentially expressed genes (DEGs) involved in plant defense, photosynthesis, and sugar metabolism identified in the comparative transcriptomes. C: control plants. P: plants infested with Lso-negative B. cockerelli. L: plants infested with Lso-positive B. cockerelli. For each DEG the log2(Fold change) is reported. NS: Not significant. Supplementary material 10 (PDF 98 KB)

References

  1. Alvarado VY, Odokonyero D, Duncan O, Mirkov TE, Scholthof HB (2012) Molecular and physiological properties associated with Zebra Complex disease in potatoes and its relation with Candidatus Liberibacter contents in psyllid vectors. PLoS ONE.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0037345 Google Scholar
  2. Bateman A, Martin MJ, O’Donovan C et al (2015) UniProt: a hub for protein information. Nucleic Acids Res 43:D204–D212.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku989 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berger S, Sinha AK, Roitsch T (2007) Plant physiology meets phytopathology: plant primary metabolism and plant–pathogen interactions. J Exp Bot 58:4019–4026.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erm298 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Blanc S, Michalakis Y (2016) Manipulation of hosts and vectors by plant viruses and impact of the environment. Curr Opin Insect Sci 16:36–43.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cois.2016.05.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonfig KB, Schreiber U, Gabler A, Roitsch T, Berger S (2006) Infection with virulent and avirulent P. syringae strains differentially affects photosynthesis and sink metabolism in Arabidopsis leaves. Planta 225:1–12.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-006-0303-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Bradford MM (1976) A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Anal Biochem 72:248–254.  https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Casteel CL, Hansen AK, Walling LL, Paine TD (2012) Manipulation of plant defense responses by the tomato psyllid (Bactericerca cockerelli) and its associated endosymbiont Candidatus Liberibacter psyllaurous. PLoS ONE 7:e35191.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0035191 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chen LQ (2014) SWEET sugar transporters for phloem transport and pathogen nutrition. New Phytol 201:1150–1155.  https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.12445 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen LQ, Hou BH, Lalonde S et al (2010) Sugar transporters for intercellular exchange and nutrition of pathogens. Nature 468:527–532.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09606 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen T, Lv Y, Zhao T, Li N, Yang Y, Yu W, He X, Liu T, Zhang B (2013) Comparative transcriptome profiling of a resistant vs. susceptible tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) cultivar in response to infection by tomato yellow leaf curl virus. PLoS ONE 8:e80816.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0080816 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. CNAS (2006) Economic impacts of zebra chip on the Texas potato industry. Texas A and M University, Center for North American Studies, College StationGoogle Scholar
  12. Davis TS, Horton DR, Munyaneza JE, Landolt PJ (2012) Experimental infection of plants with an herbivore-associated bacterial endosymbiont influences herbivore host selection behavior. PLoS ONE 7:e49330.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0049330 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. Fan J, Chen CX, Yu QB, Brlansky RH, Li ZG, Gmitter FG (2011) Comparative iTRAQ proteome and transcriptome analyses of sweet orange infected by “Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus”. Physiol Plant 143:235–245.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.2011.01502.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fernandez-Pozo N, Menda N, Edwards JD et al (2015) The Sol Genomics Network (SGN)-from genotype to phenotype to breeding. Nucleic Acids Res 43:D1036–D1041.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gku1195 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Goff SA, Vaughn M, McKay S et al (2011) The iPlant collaborative: cyberinfrastructure for plant biology. Front Plant Sci 2:16.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2011.00034 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Goodstein DM, Shu SQ, Howson R et al (2012) Phytozome: a comparative platform for green plant genomics. Nucleic Acids Res 40:D1178–D1186.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkr944 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Grennan AK (2008) Ethylene response factors in jasmonate signaling and defense response. Plant Physiol 146:1457–1458.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.104.900254 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Gu YQ, Yang C, Thara VK, Zhou J, Martin GB (2000) Pti4 is induced by ethylene and salicylic acid, and its product is phosphorylated by the Pto kinase. Plant Cell 12:771–785.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.12.5.771 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Haapalainen M (2014) Biology and epidemics of Candidatus Liberibacter species, psyllid-transmitted plant-pathogenic bacteria. Ann Appl Biol 165:172–198.  https://doi.org/10.1111/aab.12149 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hamberger B, Bak S (2013) Plant P450s as versatile drivers for evolution of species-specific chemical diversity. Philos T R Soc B.  https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0426 Google Scholar
  21. Hodges AW, Spreen TH (2012) Economic impacts of citrus greening (HLB) in Florida, (2006)/2007-2010-2011. University of Florida, GainesvilleGoogle Scholar
  22. Huang J-S (2001) Plant pathogenesis and resistance: biochemistry and physiology of plant–microbe interactions. Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Karban R, Baldwin IT (1997) Induced responses to herbivory. The University of Chicago, ChicagoCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kocal N, Sonnewald U, Sonnewald S (2008) Cell wall-bound invertase limits sucrose export and is involved in symptom development and inhibition of photosynthesis during compatible interaction between tomato and Xanthomonas campestris pv vesicatoria. Plant Physiol 148:1523–1536.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.108.127977 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. Koch KE (1996) Carbohydrate-modulated gene expression in plants. Annu Rev Plant Physiol Plant Molec Biol 47:509–540.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.47.1.509 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Levy J, Ravindran A, Gross D, Tamborindeguy C, Pierson E (2011) Trans location of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, the Zebra Chip pathogen, in potato and tomato. Phytopathology 101:1285–1291.  https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-04-11-0121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Levy JG, Mendoza A, Miller JC, Tamborindeguy C, Pierson EA (2017) Global gene expression in two potato cultivars in response to ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ infection. BMC Genom 18:960.  https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-017-4313-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Liefting LW, Perez-Egusquiza ZC, Clover GRG, Anderson JAD (2008) A new ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species in Solanum tuberosum in New Zealand. Plant Dis 92:1474–1474.  https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-92-10-1474a CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liefting LW, Weir BS, Pennycook SR, Clover GRG (2009) ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’, associated with plants in the family Solanaceae. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 59:2274–2276.  https://doi.org/10.1099/ijs.0.007377-0 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lin H, Doddapaneni H, Munyaneza JE, Civerolo EL, Sengoda GS, Buchman JL, Stenger DC (2009) Molecular characterization and phylogenetic analysis of 16S rDNA from a new “Candidatus Liberibacter” strain associated with zebra chip disease of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) and the potato psyllid (Bactericera cockerelli Sulc). J Plant Pathol 91:215–219Google Scholar
  31. Liu ZQ, Qiu AL, Shi LP et al (2015) SRC2-1 is required in PcINF1-induced pepper immunity by acting as an interacting partner of PcINF1. J Exp Bot 66:3683–3698.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erv161 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Mafra V, Martins PK, Francisco CS, Ribeiro-Alves M, Freitas-Astua J, Machado MA (2013) Candidatus Liberibacter americanus induces significant reprogramming of the transcriptome of the susceptible citrus genotype. BMC Genom 14:15.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-247 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mas F, Vereijssen J, Suckling DM (2014) Influence of the pathogen Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum on tomato host plant volatiles and psyllid vector settlement. J Chem Ecol 40:1197–1202.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10886-014-0518-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Munoz-Bertomeu J, Miedes E, Lorences EP (2013) Expression of xyloglucan endotransglucosylase/hydrolase (XTH) genes and XET activity in ethylene treated apple and tomato fruits. J Plant Physiol 170:1194–1201.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2013.03.015 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Munyaneza JE (2012) Zebra chip disease of potato: biology, epidemiology, and management. Am J Potato Res 89:329–350.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-012-9262-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Munyaneza JE, Crosslin JM, Upton JE (2007) Association of Bactericera cockerelli (Homoptera: Psyllidae) with “zebra chip,” a new potato disease in southwestern United States and Mexico. J Econ Entomol 100:656–663CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Nachappa P, Levy J, Pierson E, Tamborindeguy C (2011) Diversity of endosymbionts in the potato psyllid, Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae), vector of Zebra Chip disease of potato. Curr Microbiol 62:1510–1520.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00284-011-9885-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Nachappa P, Levy J, Pierson E, Tamborindeguy C (2014) Correlation between “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum” infection levels and fecundity in its psyllid vector. J Invertebr Pathol 115:55–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jip.2013.10.008 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Nwugo CC, Duan YP, Lin H (2013a) Study on citrus response to huanglongbing highlights a down-regulation of defense-related proteins in lemon plants upon ‘Ca. Liberibacter asiaticus’ infection. PLoS ONE 8:13.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0067442 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Nwugo CC, Lin H, Duan YP, Civerolo EL (2013b) The effect of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’ infection on the proteomic profiles and nutritional status of pre-symptomatic and symptomatic grapefruit (Citrus paradisi) plants. BMC Plant Biol 13:24.  https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2229-13-59 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pandey SP, Somssich IE (2009) The role of WRKY transcription factors in plant immunity. Plant Physiol 150:1648–1655.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.109.138990 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Rashed A, Wallis CM, Paetzold L, Workneh F, Rush CM (2013) Zebra chip disease and potato biochemistry: tuber physiological changes in response to ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ infection over time. Phytopathology 103:419–426.  https://doi.org/10.1094/Phyto-09-12-0244-R CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Riedel G, Rüdrich U, Fekete-Drimusz N, Manns MP, Vondran FWR, Bock M (2014) An extended ∆CT-method facilitating normalisation with multiple reference genes suited for quantitative RT-PCR analyses of human hepatocyte-like cells. PLoS ONE 9:e93031.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0093031 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Roitsch T (1999) Source-sink regulation by sugar and stress. Curr Opin Plant Biol 2:198–206.  https://doi.org/10.1016/s1369-5266(99)80036-3 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Roitsch T, Balibrea ME, Hofmann M, Proels R, Sinha AK (2003) Extracellular invertase: key metabolic enzyme and PR protein. J Exp Bot 54:513–524.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg050 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Rosales R, Burns JK (2011) Phytohormone changes and carbohydrate status in sweet orange fruit from huanglongbing-infected trees. J Plant Growth Regul 30:312–321.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-011-9193-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rowland O, Ludwig AA, Merrick CJ et al (2005) Functional analysis of Avr9/Cf-9 rapidly elicited genes identifies a protein kinase, ACIK1, that is essential for full Cf-9-dependent disease resistance in tomato. Plant Cell 17:295–310.  https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.104.026013 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  48. Rozen S, Skaletsky H (2000) Primer3 on the WWW for general users and for biologist programmers. Bioinform Methods Protoc Methods Mol Biol 132:365–386Google Scholar
  49. Ruijter JM, Ramakers C, Hoogaars WMH, Karlen Y, Bakker O, van den Hoff MJB, Moorman AFM (2009) Amplification efficiency: linking baseline and bias in the analysis of quantitative PCR data. Nucleic Acids Res 37:e45.  https://doi.org/10.1093/nar/gkp045 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  50. Sato S, Tabata S, Hirakawa H et al (2012) The tomato genome sequence provides insights into fleshy fruit evolution. Nature 485:635–641.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nature11119 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sengoda VG, Munyaneza JE, Crosslin JM, Buchman JL, Pappu HR (2010) Phenotypic and etiological differences between psyllid yellows and Zebra Chip diseases of potato. Am J Potato Res 87:41–49.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12230-009-9115-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sherson SM, Alford HL, Forbes SM, Wallace G, Smith SM (2003) Roles of cell-wall invertases and monosaccharide transporters in the growth and development of Arabidopsis. J Exp Bot 54:525–531.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg055 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Tauzin AS, Giardina T (2014) Sucrose and invertases, a part of the plant defense response to the biotic stresses. Front Plant Sci 5:8.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00293 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Thaler JS, Stout MJ, Karban R, Duffey SS (1996) Exogenous jasmonates simulate insect wounding in tomato plants (Lycopersicon esculentum) in the laboratory and field. J Chem Ecol 22:1767–1781.  https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02028503 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Thinakaran J, Yang X-B, Munyaneza JE, Rush CM, Henne DC (2015) Comparative biology and life tables of “Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum”-infected and -free Bactericera cockerelli (Hemiptera: Triozidae) on potato and silverleaf nightshade. Ann Entomol Soc Am.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aesa/sav030 Google Scholar
  56. Tian DL, Peiffer M, De Moraes CM, Felton GW (2014) Roles of ethylene and jasmonic acid in systemic induced defense in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) against Helicoverpa zea. Planta 239:577–589.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-013-1997-7 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Trapnell C, Roberts A, Goff L et al (2012) Differential gene and transcript expression analysis of RNA-seq experiments with TopHat and Cufflinks. Nat Protocols 7:562–578CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Trapnell C, Hendrickson DG, Sauvageau M, Goff L, Rinn JL, Pachter L (2013) Differential analysis of gene regulation at transcript resolution with RNA-sEq. Nat Biotechnol 31:46–53.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.2450 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Walling LL (2000) The myriad plant responses to herbivores. J Plant Growth Regul 19:195–216PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Walling LL (2008) Avoiding effective defenses: strategies employed by phloem-feeding insects. Plant Physiol 146:859–866.  https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.113142 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  61. Wallis CM, Chen JC, Civerolo EL (2012) Zebra chip-diseased potato tubers are characterized by increased levels of host phenolics, amino acids, and defense-related proteins. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 78:66–72.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmpp.2012.02.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wallis CM, Rashed A, Chen J, Paetzold L, Workneh F, Rush CM (2015) Effects of potato-psyllid-vectored ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’ Infection on potato leaf and stem physiology. Phytopathology 105:189–198.  https://doi.org/10.1094/phyto-04-14-0113-r CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Wen A, Mallik I, Alvarado VY et al (2009) Detection, distribution, and genetic variability of ‘Candidatus Liberibacter’ species associated with Zebra Complex disease of potato in North America. Plant Dis 93:1102–1115.  https://doi.org/10.1094/pdis-93-11-1102 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xu MR, Li Y, Zheng Z, Dai ZH, Tao Y, Deng XL (2015) Transcriptional analyses of mandarins seriously infected by ‘Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus’. PLoS ONE 10:e0133652.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0133652 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  65. Yao J, Saenkham P, Levy J, Ibanez F, Noroy C, Mendoza A, Huot O, Meyer DF, Tamborindeguy C (2016) Interactions ‘Candidatus Liberibacter solanacearum’: Bactericera cockerelli: haplotype effect on vector fitness and gene expression analyses. Front Cell Infect Microbiol 6:62.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fcimb.2016.00062 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  66. Zhong Y, Cheng CZ, Jiang NH et al (2015) Comparative transcriptome and iTRAQ proteome analyses of citrus root responses to Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus infection. PLoS ONE 10:21.  https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0126973 Google Scholar
  67. Zhong Y, Cheng CZ, Jiang B, Jiang NH, Zhang YY, Hu ML, Zhong GY (2016) Digital gene expression analysis of Ponkan mandarin (Citrus reticulata Blanco) in response to Asia citrus psyllid-vectored huanglongbing infection. Int J Mol Sci 17:1063.  https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms17071063 CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EntomologyTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA
  2. 2.Department of Horticultural SciencesTexas A&M UniversityCollege StationUSA

Personalised recommendations