Advertisement

Methods to Quantify Biotic-Induced Stress in Plants

  • Marcel Bach-Pages
  • Gail M. PrestonEmail author
Protocol
Part of the Methods in Molecular Biology book series (MIMB, volume 1734)

Abstract

Plant pathogens such as fungi, oomycetes, viruses and bacteria infect important crops and account for significant economic losses worldwide. Therefore, it is critical to gain insights into plant–pathogen interactions at the cellular and molecular level. The outcome of the interaction between plants and pathogens greatly differs depending on the species, strains and cultivars involved as well as environmental factors, yet typically results in stress for the plant, the pathogen or both. These biotic-induced stresses can be monitored using a wide range of techniques, of which some of the most commonly used techniques are outlined in this chapter. One widely observed feature of biotic stress in plants is the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and superoxide (O2). We describe the quantification of hydrogen peroxide by 3,3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) staining and luminol-based assays, and of superoxide by nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT) staining. Other techniques detailed here include measurement of callose deposition by aniline blue staining, evaluation of cell death by trypan blue staining and analysis of the loss of membrane integrity by monitoring electrolyte leakage.

Key words

Biotic stress Plant pathogen Nicotiana benthamiana Pseudomonas syringae ROS DAB Luminol NBT Callose deposition Aniline blue Cell death Trypan blue Electrolyte leakage 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Marcel Bach-Pages is supported by BBSRC (BB/M011224/1) and by the Lorna Casselton Memorial Scholarship at St. Cross College, Oxford. The authors would like to thank Helen Fones for comments on an earlier version of this chapter.

References

  1. 1.
    Agrios GN (2005) Plant pathology, 5th edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strange RN, Scott PR (2005) Plant disease: a threat to global food security. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43:83–116CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bebber DP, Gurr SJ (2015) Crop-destroying fungal and oomycete pathogens challenge food security. Fungal Genet Biol 74:62–64CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jones JDG, Dangl JL (2006) The plant immune system. Nat Rev 444:323–329Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Baker CJ, Orlandi EW (1995) Active oxygen in plant pathogenesis. Annu Rev Phytopathol 33:299–321CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Voigt CA (2014) Callose-mediated resistance to pathogenic intruders in plant defense-related papillae. Front Plant Sci 5:168CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luna E, Pastor V, Robert J et al (2011) Callose deposition: a multifaceted plant defense response. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 24:183–193CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Jeworutzki E, Roelfsema MRG, Anschütz U et al (2010) Early signaling through the Arabidopsis pattern recognition receptors FLS2 and EFR involves Ca2+-associated opening of plasma membrane anion channels. Plant J 62:367–378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Greenberg JT, Yao N (2004) The role and regulation of programmed cell death in plant–pathogen interactions. Cell Microbiol 6:201–211CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hiruma K, Fukunaga S, Bednarek P et al (2013) Glutathione and tryptophan metabolism are required for Arabidopsis immunity during the hypersensitive response to hemibiotrophs. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 110:9589–9594CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tsuda K, Sato M, Stoddard T et al (2009) Network properties of robust immunity in plants. PLoS Genet 5:e1000772CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Mehta A, Brasileiro ACM, Souza DSL et al (2008) Plant–pathogen interactions: what is proteomics telling us? FEBS J 275:3731–3746CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Pombo MA, Zheng Y, Fernandez-Pozo N et al (2014) Transcriptomic analysis reveals tomato genes whose expression is induced specifically during effector-triggered immunity and identifies the Epk1 protein kinase which is required for the host response to three bacterial effector proteins. Genome Biol 15:492CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Howard BE, Hu Q, Babaoglu AC et al (2013) High-throughput RNA sequencing of Pseudomonas-infected Arabidopsis reveals hidden transcriptome complexity and novel splice variants. PLoS One 8:e74183CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Yang Y, Wang M, Yin Y et al (2015) RNA-seq analysis reveals the role of red light in resistance against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato DC3000 in tomato plants. BMC Genomics 16:1–16CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Forcat S, Bennett MH, Mansfield JW, Grant MR (2008) A rapid and robust method for simultaneously measuring changes in the phytohormones ABA, JA and SA in plants following biotic and abiotic stress. Plant Methods 8:1–8Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ward JL, Forcat S, Beckmann M et al (2010) The metabolic transition during disease following infection of Arabidopsis thaliana by Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato. Plant J 63:443–457CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    O’Leary BMO, Neale HC, Geilfus C et al (2016) Early changes in apoplast composition associated with defence and disease in interactions between Phaseolus vulgaris and the halo blight pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola. Plant Cell Environ 39:2172–2184CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    de Torres-Zabala M, Littlejohn G, Jayaraman S et al (2015) Chloroplasts play a central role in plant defence and are targeted by pathogen effectors. Nat Plants 1:1–10Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Alvarez ME, Pennell RI, Meijer PJ et al (1998) Reactive oxygen intermediates mediate a systemic signal network in the establishment of plant immunity. Cell 92:773–784CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Díaz-tielas C, Graña E, Sotelo T et al (2012) The natural compound trans-chalcone induces programmed cell death in Arabidopsis thaliana roots. Plant Cell Environ 35:1500–1517CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    He SY, Huang H, Collmer A (1993) Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae harpinpss: a protein that is secreted via the Hrp pathway and elicits the hypersensitive response in plants. Cell 73:1255–1266CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mur LAJ, Kenton P, Lloyd AJ et al (2008) The hypersensitive response; the centenary is upon us but how much do we know? J Exp Bot 59:501–520CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Verlag F, Campos PS, Quartin V et al (2003) Electrolyte leakage and lipid degradation account for cold sensitivity in leaves of Coffea sp. plants. J Plant Physiol 292:283–292Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bajji M, Kinet JM, Lutts S (2002) The use of the electrolyte leakage method for assessing cell membrane stability as a water stress tolerance test in durum wheat. Plant Growth Regul 36:61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chakravarthy S, Velásquez AC, Martin GB (2009) Assay for pathogen-associated molecular pattern (PAMP)-triggered immunity (PTI) in plants. J Vis Exp 31:e1442Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Nguyen HP, Chakravarthy S, Velásquez AC et al (2010) Methods to study PAMP-triggered immunity using tomato and Nicotiana benthamiana. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 23:991–999CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Yao J, Withers J, He SY (2013) Pseudomonas syringae infection assays in Arabidopsis. In: Goossens A, Pauwels L (eds) Jasmonate signal, Methods and protocol. Springer, New York, pp 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Katagiri F, Thilmony R, He SY (2002) The Arabidopsis thaliana-Pseudomonas syringae interaction. Arabidopsis Book 1:e0039CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Gomez-Gomez L, Felix G, Boller T (1999) A single locus determines sensitivity to bacterial flagellin in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J 18:277–284CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhou J, Spallek T, Faulkner C et al (2012) Callose Measurer: a novel software solution to measure callose deposition and recognise spreading callose patterns. Plant Methods 8:49–57CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Smith JM, Heese A (2014) Rapid bioassay to measure early reactive oxygen species production in Arabidopsis leave tissue in response to living Pseudomonas syringae. Plant Methods 10:1–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Kunze G, Zipfel C, Robatzek S et al (2004) The N terminus of bacterial elongation factor Tu elicits innate immunity in Arabidopsis plants. Plant Cell 16:3496–3507CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bisceglia NG, Gravino M, Savatin DV (2015) Luminol-based assay for detection of immunity elicitor-induced hydrogen peroxide production in Arabidopsis thaliana leaves. Bio-protocol 5:1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Luna E, Pastor V, Robert J et al (2010) Callose deposition: a multifaceted plant defense response. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact 24:183–193CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Plant SciencesUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations