Molecular Control of Disease Resistance in Plants

  • G. A. Strobel
  • D. Kenfield


Resistance to disease is a more common phenomenon in plants than susceptibility. In many cases the inheritance of disease resistance has been established in common crop plants. Nevertheless, in most cases the gene products from the host and the parasite governing the outcome of the interaction are unknown. Susceptibility to disease must necessarily be the result of molecular interactions between the host and its parasite. Expression of resistance on the other hand could conceivably include a wide range of phenomena including the mechanical exclusion of the parasite. Thus, a study of the susceptible interaction is warranted. For this reason we have chosen to examine the biochemistry of a host-parasite system in which the following criteria were met:
  1. 1.

    The majority of the disease symptoms are caused by a toxin produced by the parasite. Thus, the other complexities in the host-parasite system are eliminated and the biological activity of the toxin can be studied.

  2. 2.

    The toxin is host-specific (host range identical to that of the parasite).

  3. 3.

    The host plant has a broad range of toxin-sensitive and toxin-insensitive clones.

  4. 4.

    The toxin can be isolated, characterized and labeled with radioisotopes.



Binding Activity Toxin Production Resistant Clone Chaotropic Agent Toxin Binding 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Albersheim P, Anderson-Prouty A (1975) Annu Rev Physiol 26: 31–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Babszinski P, Matern U, Strobel GA (1978) Plant Physiol 61: 46–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beier R (1980) Ph. D. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MTGoogle Scholar
  4. Byther R, Steiner G (1971) Phytopath 61:691–696Google Scholar
  5. Byther RS, Steiner GW (1975) Plant Physiol 56: 415–519PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Kenfield D (1979) Ph. D. Thesis, Montana State University, Bozeman, MTGoogle Scholar
  7. Kenfield D, Strobel GA (1980) Biochem Biophys Acta, in pressGoogle Scholar
  8. Kenfield D, Strobel GA (1980) Plant Physiol, in pressGoogle Scholar
  9. Pinkerton F, Strobel GA (1976) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 73: 4007–4011PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Sinensky M, Strobel G (1976) Plant Sci Letters 6: 209–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Steiner GW, Strobel GA (1971) J Biol Chem 246: 4350–4357PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Strobel GA (1973) J Biol Chem 248: 1321–1328PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Strobel GA (1973) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 70: 1693–1696PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Strobel GA (1974) Proc Natl Acad Sci 71: 4231–4236Google Scholar
  15. Strobel GA (1979) Biochem Biophys Acta 554: 460–468PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Strobel GA, Hapner K (1975) Biochem Biophys Res Commun 63: 1151–1156PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Strobel GA, Hess WM (1974) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 71: 1413–1417PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Strobel GA, Steiner G, Byther R (1975) Biochem Genet 13: 557–565PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Van Larebeke N, Engler G, Holsters M, Van de Elsacker S, Zaenen I, Schilperoort RA, Schell J (1974) Nature 252: 169–170PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Wade M, Albersheim A (1979) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 76: 4443–4437Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • G. A. Strobel
  • D. Kenfield
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant PathologyMontana State UniversityBozemanUSA

Personalised recommendations