Study on the Difference of Defensive Enzyme Activities in Interaction Between Sporisorium scitamineum Isolates from Different Molecular Genetic Groups and Sugarcane

doi:10.7668/hbnxb.2016.02.035

Abstract

Abstract: In order to investigate the changes of defensive enzyme activities in sugarcane infected by Sporisorium scitamineum isolates originated from different molecular genetic groups.Five representative S.scitamineum isolations, including isolates 16, 24, 25, 47 and 89, were injected to the resistant variety Q171 and susceptible variety ROC22 by using injected inoculation method.The activities of superoxide dismutase(SOD), peroxidase(POD), catalase(CAT), phenylalanine ammonialyase(PAL)and polyphenol oxidase(PPO) were determined during the interactions of Q171 and ROC22 sugarcane varieties with isolates of S.scitamineum.The results showed that the activities of SOD, POD and CAT existed 2 peaks, PPO of resistant variety Q171 and PAL of susceptible variety ROC22 also existed 2 peaks.PeakⅠappeared in the first day, peak Ⅱ appeared in the third to fifth days after inoculation.During the peak Ⅱ, activities of five defensive enzymes mentioned above were higher in sugarcane plants inoculated by five isolates of S.scitamineum than those in the corresponding non-inoculated controls.However peak Ⅱ values and occurrence time of the SOD, POD and PAL showed significant difference among five isolates.Especially, peak Ⅱ of isolate 89 was earlier 1-2 days than other four isolates in the occurrence time and its value also showed significant difference from other isolates.It was initially considered that the isolate 89 might be represent a new physiological race which was different from other four isolates.

Key words: Sugarcane, Sporisorium scitamineum, Defensive enzyme

CLC Number:

S435.3

XU Ganghong, SHEN Wankuan, WU Xiaming, CHEN Shuang, LUO Mingzhu, CHEN Peishou. Study on the Difference of Defensive Enzyme Activities in Interaction Between Sporisorium scitamineum Isolates from Different Molecular Genetic Groups and Sugarcane[J]. ACTA AGRICULTURAE BOREALI-SINICA, 2016, 31(2): 218-223. doi: 10.7668/hbnxb.2016.02.035.

/ / Recommend / Download Citations

URL: http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/10.7668/hbnxb.2016.02.035

http://www.hbnxb.net/EN/Y2016/V31/I2/218

References

[1] Singh N,Somai B M,Pillay D.Smut disease assessment by PCR and microscopy in inoculated tissue cultured sugarcane cultivars[J].Plant Science,2004,167(5):987-994.
[2] Armas R D,Santiago R,Legaz M E,et al.Levels of phenolic compounds and enzyme activity can be used to screen for resistance of sugarcane to smut(Ustilago scitaminea)[J].Australasian Plant Pathology,2007,36(1):32-38.
[3] Croft B J,Braithwaite K S.Management of an incursion of sugarcane smut in Australia[J].Australasian Plant Pathology,2006,35(2):113-122.
[4] Alexander K C,Krishna R K.Studies on smut disease(Ustilago scitaminea)of sugarcane:Longevity and viability of teliospores[J].Indian Journal of Sugarcane Technology,1978,1:47-49.
[5] 吴转娣,昝逢刚,吴才文,等.甘蔗黑穗病菌的快速检测[J].西南农业学报,2010,23(5):1548-1550.
[6] 沈万宽,杨湛端,刘睿,等.基于PCR和巢式PCR技术的甘蔗黑穗病早期检测[J].热带作物学报,2013,34(9):1756-1760.
[7] Shen W K,Xi P G,Li M H,et al.Genetic diversity of Ustilago scitaminea Syd.in Southern China revealed by combined ISSR and RAPD analysis[J].African Journal of Biotechnology,2012,11(54):11693-11703.
[8] 熊国如,赵更峰,伍苏然,等.海南蔗区甘蔗黑穗病菌生理小种鉴定[J].热带作物学报,2013,34(7):1328-1334.
[9] 莫凤连,杨丽涛,潘如科,等.甘蔗黑穗病菌胁迫对甘蔗内源激素含量的影响[J].南方农业学报,2012,43(11):1676-1681.
[10] Moerschbacher B M,Noll U M,Flott B E,et al.Lignin biosynthetic enzymes in stem rust infected,resistant and susceptible near-isogenic wheat lines[J].Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology,1988,33(1):33-46.
[11] 陈建勋,王晓峰.植物生理学实验指导[M].广州:华南理工大学出版社,2002:68-73.
[12] 李杨瑞.甘蔗组织中过氧化物酶活性及其与生长和工艺成熟的关系初探[J].广西农学院学报,1990,9(1):13-18.
[13] 李合生.植物生理生化实验原理和技术[M].北京:高等教育出版社,2000:12-78.
[14] 金庆超,叶华智,张敏.苯丙氨酸解氨酶活性与玉米对纹枯病抗性的关系[J].四川农业大学学报,2003,21(2):116-118.
[15] 曹建康,姜微波,赵玉梅.果蔬采后生理生化实验指导[M].北京:中国轻工业出版社,2007:76-120.
[16] 杨丽涛,李杨瑞,莫家让.硝酸镧、混合稀土对甘蔗叶片多酚氧化酶和过氧化物酶活性的影响[J].广西农学院学报,1990,9(3):80-84.
[17] 孔凡明,杨光,陈学平,等.烟草与TMV不同互作体系中的活性氧及抗氧化酶系活性比较[J].安徽农业大学学报,2002,29(3):217-223.
[18] 李赤,黎永坚,于莉.香蕉枯萎病菌对不同香蕉品种防御酶系的影响[J].中国农学通报,2010,26(17):251-255.
[19] 邹芳斌,司龙亭,李新,等.黄瓜枯萎病抗性与防御系统几种酶活性关系的研究[J].华北农学报,2008,23(3):181-184.
[20] 莫凤连.甘蔗受黑穗病菌侵染后的形态结构及生理生化变化[D].南宁:广西大学,2012.
[21] 宋培玲,张键,郝丽芬,等.不同抗性油菜品种接种黑胫病菌防御酶活性变化研究[J].华北农学报,2015,30(2):110-115.
[22] 汪红,刘辉,袁红霞,等.棉花黄萎病不同抗性品种接菌前后体内酶活性及酚类物质含量的变化[J].华北农学报,2001,16(3):46-51.
[23] 许莉萍,王建南,陈如凯.甘蔗对黑穗病的生化反应及其与抗病性的关系[J].甘蔗,1994,1(3):13-16.
[24] 左示敏,陈夕军,陈红旗,等.不同抗性水平水稻品种对纹枯病菌毒素的防卫反应与生理差异[J].中国水稻科学,2014,28(5):551-558.
[25] 王海河,林奇英,谢联辉,等.黄瓜花叶病毒三个毒株对烟草细胞内防御酶系统及细胞膜通透性的影响[J].植物病理学报,2001,31(1):43-49.
[26] 田丽波,杨衍,商桑,等.不同苦瓜品系的抗白粉病能力及其与防御酶活性的相关性[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2015,46(3):284-291.
[27] 王红英,钱春桃,张永兵,等.不同抗性甜瓜接种蔓枯病菌后若干生理指标的变化[J].中国瓜菜,2012,25(1):7-10.
[28] 杨辉,沈火林,朱鑫,等.防御酶活性、木质素和总酚含量与辣椒抗黄瓜花叶病毒的关系[J].中国农学通报,2006,22(5):369-373.
[29] 马景蕃,刘喜明,刘建奎,等.不结球白菜感染菌核病后防御酶活性的变化[J].江苏农业学报,2012,28(6):1403-1408.
[30] 马艳玲,吴凤芝.枯萎病菌对不同抗性黄瓜品种苯丙氨酸解氨酶的影响[J].沈阳农业大学学报,2006,37(3):335-338.
[31] Santiago R,De armas R,Fontaniella B,et al.Changes in soluble and cell wall-bound hydroxycinnamic and hydroxybenzoic acids in sugarcane cultivars inoculated with Sporisorium scitamineum sporidia[J].European Journal of Plant Pathology,2009,124(3):439-450.

Please choose a citation manager

Content to export