Next Article in Journal
Resveratrol Protects Cardiac Tissue in Experimental Malignant Hypertension Due to Antioxidant, Anti-Inflammatory, and Anti-Apoptotic Properties
Next Article in Special Issue
Molecular Insights into the Role of Cysteine-Rich Peptides in Induced Resistance to Fusarium oxysporum Infection in Tomato Based on Transcriptome Profiling
Previous Article in Journal
The Defibrillation Conundrum: New Insights into the Mechanisms of Shock-Related Myocardial Injury Sustained from a Life-Saving Therapy
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effectors of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici Suppressing the Pathogenic-Associated Molecular Pattern-Triggered Immune Response Were Screened by Transient Expression of Wheat Protoplasts
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 22
Issue 9
10.3390/ijms22095004
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Photoperiod Following Inoculation of Arabidopsis with Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) Influences on the Plant–Pathogen Interaction

by
Sayaka Shimizu
,
Yuri Yamauchi
and
Atsushi Ishikawa
*
Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Fukui Prefectural University, Fukui 910-1195, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22(9), 5004; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22095004
Submission received: 5 April 2021 / Revised: 26 April 2021 / Accepted: 6 May 2021 / Published: 8 May 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Innate Immunity 4.0)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
In plant–pathogen interactions, a proper light environment affects the establishment of defense responses in plants. In our previous experiments, we found that nonhost resistance (NHR) to Pyricularia oryzae Cav. in Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Arabidopsis), in diurnal conditions, varies with the inoculation time. Moreover, we indicated that the circadian clock plays an important role in regulating time-of-day differences in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis. However, the involvement of photoperiod in regulating NHR was still not understood. To determine the photoperiod role, we performed the experiments in continuous light and darkness during the early Arabidopsis–P. oryzae interaction. We found that the light period after the inoculation in the evening enhanced the resistance to penetration. However, the dark period after the inoculation in the morning suppressed the penetration resistance. Furthermore, the genetic analysis indicated that jasmonic acid, reactive oxygen species, and tryptophan-derived metabolite(s) contribute to the photoperiod regulation of NHR in Arabidopsis. The present results denote that photoperiod plays an important role in regulating time-of-day differences in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis.

1. Introduction

Light directly regulates plant physiology and development as well as affects many plant responses to the environment, including defense responses in plant–pathogen interactions [1,2,3]. Light can regulate plant responses by two mechanisms: photosynthesis and photoreceptor signaling in plants [1,2,3]. Photosynthesis contributes to the supply of reducing equivalents and energy for metabolite production. Plant photoreceptors perceive surrounding red/far-red (phytochromes), blue/UV-A (cryptochromes, phototropins), and UV-B light (UVR8) [3,4]. Previous studies in plants showed that resistance responses require light [1,2,3], and in many plant–pathogen interactions, resistance responses are weakened in the dark [5,6,7,8]. It has recently been shown that chloroplast is involved in plant immunity [9]. Therefore, light has effects on defense responses through the regulation of chloroplast function. Furthermore, light affects pathogenesis through the regulation of pathogen growth and development [1]; as an example, light inhibits spore germination and germ tubes’ growth in many plant fungi [10,11,12,13,14].
Disease resistance shown by a plant species to all genetic variants of a pathogen species that have not adapted to it is called nonhost resistance (NHR) [15,16]. Several penetration-resistance genes of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh. (Arabidopsis) mutants with compromised NHR to non-adapted powdery mildew Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei (Bgh) have been identified: penetration 1 (pen1), pen2, and pen3 [17,18,19,20,21,22,23]. PEN1 encodes a plasma membrane-anchored syntaxin [17], PEN2 encodes a myrosinase involved in indole glucosinolate (IG) metabolism used in defense responses [18], and PEN3 encodes an ATP-binding cassette transporter [19,20]. The PEN2 hydrolyzes IGs and produces broad-spectrum toxic compounds with antifungal activity in Arabidopsis [21], and PEN3 transports the bioactive metabolite(s) of the PEN2 pathway and camalexin, which is synthesized through CYP71B15 (PAD3) [22] into the apoplast at pathogen contact sites [20,23].
Glucosinolates (GSs) are secondary metabolites with defensive function in members of the order Brassicales [24]. IGs are derived from tryptophan (Trp), and the first step in IG biosynthesis is catalyzed by CYP79B2 and CYP79B3 [24]. These two P450 monooxygenases convert Trp into indole-3-acetaldoxime (IAOx) [25]. IAOx is a precursor of the IG, camalexin, and indole-3-carboxylic acid derivatives. These indole-type metabolites act in defense responses in Arabidopsis. In fact, cyp79B2 cyp79B3 mutant plants are highly susceptible to many plant fungal pathogens [26,27,28].
Rice blast caused by Pyricularia oryzae Cav. (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae Couch.) is a devastating disease of rice. The mechanisms of resistance to P. oryzae have been extensively studied, and the rice–P. oryzae pathosystem has become a model for plant–microbe interaction studies [29,30]. We have previously investigated the mechanisms of NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis and found a suite of genes involved in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis [31,32]. For example, we have shown that pen2-1 mol2 pmr5 gl1 NahG (pm5gN) plants were severely compromised for NHR to P. oryzae. Those findings indicate that PEN2, MILDEW RESISTANCE LOCUS O 2 (MLO2), and POWDERY MILDEW RESISTANCE 5 (PMR5) are involved in the establishment of NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis [32]. In addition, we have examined the involvement of other defense-related genes in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis, including PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT 1 (PAD1), PHYTOALEXIN DEFICIENT 3 (PAD3), JASMONATE RESISTANT 1 (JAR1), SUPPRESSOR OF BIR1 (SOBIR1), and ARABIDOPSIS RESPIRATORY BURST OXIDASE HOMOLOGUES (AtRbohD and AtRbohF) and found that some of them contribute to NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis [31,33,34].
In a previous report, we found that NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis varies with inoculation time in diurnal conditions [35]. These prior results showed a lower resistance after inoculation in the evening rather than in the morning. In conclusion, the plant’s internal clock, its photoperiod, or both play an important role in regulating time-of-day differences in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis. Indeed, we have shown that the circadian clock component CCA1 contributes to time-of-day-dependent penetration resistance and that another component LHY regulates post-penetration resistance [36]. However, the involvement of photoperiod in regulating NHR is still not understood. In rice–P. oryzae interaction, the effect of light and darkness on the infection of rice blast fungus was investigated as early as the 1930s [37] and references cited therein. Their results suggested that light tends to inhibit P. oryzae infection of rice plants [37]. In the present research, we performed the daytime experiment both in continuous light and in continuous darkness during the early Arabidopsis—P. oryzae interaction to discriminate between circadian regulation and photoperiod regulation.

2. Results

In our experiments, Arabidopsis plants were grown under short-day conditions (9:15 L:D) at 22 °C (100 umol m−2s−1 fluorescent illumination) in a growth chamber. To study NHR in Arabidopsis, we inoculated plants in the morning (10:00 a.m.) and in the evening (5:00 p.m.) (Figure 1A). In this study, to examine the effect of light/dark period following inoculation on NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis, we changed the photoperiod after inoculation in the morning and in the evening, respectively (Figure 1B).

2.1. The Light Period Following Evening Inoculation Enhances NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis

The pen2-1 plants inoculated in the evening (5:00 p.m.) showed a decreased resistance compared with those inoculated in the morning (10:00 a.m.) (Figure 2A and Figure 3A) [35,36]. This result suggests that a dark period following the evening inoculation would have a suppressive impact on NHR. To investigate this hypothesis, plants were inoculated in the evening and kept under different conditions. We compared the penetration resistance in plants that were maintained under normal photoperiodic conditions (PM, Figure 1B) with those that were transferred to continuous light conditions until entering the dark period in the growth chamber (PL, Figure 1B). Col-0 and pen2-1 plants were inoculated with P. oryzae. Then, the leaves of infected plants 72 h post-inoculation (hpi) were harvested and examined microscopically. The accumulation of autofluorescent compounds in the challenged epidermal cell was used as a marker for penetration of P. oryzae. Cell entry was quantified in six leaves from six independent plants. A minimum of 100 infection sites were inspected per leaf. Upon inoculation onto the Col-0 plants in the evening, the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of Col-0 plants in the PM condition was not different from that of Col-0 plants under the PL condition (Figure 2A). In contrast, the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of pen2-1 plants in the PM condition was significantly higher than that of pen2-1 plants in the PL condition (Figure 2A).
To determine whether the light/dark period following inoculation in the evening affected spore germination and appressorium formation of P. oryzae, we examined the spore germination rate and the appressorium formation rate at 72 hpi on Col-0 and pen2-1 plants’ leaves. To quantify the rates, we examined the fungal sporelings on six leaves from six independent plants per experiment and genotype (minimum of 100 conidia/leaf evaluated). The spore germination rate on Col-0 plants in the PL condition was significantly lower than the rate on Col-0 plants in the PM condition (Figure 2B). Moreover, the appressorium formation rate on Col-0 plants under the PL condition was significantly lower than the rate on Col-0 plants in the PM condition (Figure 2C). Furthermore, spore germination rate and appressorium formation rate on pen2-1 plants under the PL condition were significantly lower than the PM condition (Figure 2B,C).
To more deeply examine the effect of the light condition on NHR, we investigated penetration resistance in Arabidopsis cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pen2-1 mol2 pmr5 gl1 NahG (pm5gN) plants. In these mutant plants, the penetration rates were significantly higher than those of pen2-1 plants in the PM condition, suggesting the severely compromised NHR in these plants. Nonetheless, the penetration rates under the PL condition were significantly lower than those of the PM condition (Figure 2D). These results indicate that the light period after the evening inoculation had significant suppressive effects on spore germination and appressorium formation of P. oryzae, leading to enhanced penetration resistance in the PL condition in Arabidopsis. Thus, the enhanced NHR in the PL condition is primarily related to the effect of light on P. oryzae.

2.2. The Dark Period Following the Morning Inoculation Suppresses NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis

The pen2-1 plants inoculated in the morning showed enhanced resistance compared with the plants evening inoculated (Figure 2A and Figure 3A) [35,36]. This result suggests that the light period after morning inoculation would have a positive impact on NHR. To pursue this hypothesis, plants were inoculated in the morning, and penetration resistance in plants kept under different conditions was compared. Plants were maintained under normal photoperiodic conditions (AM, Figure 1B), and the others were transferred to continuous darkness until entering the light period in the growth chamber (AD, Figure 1B). Upon inoculation onto the Col-0 plants in the morning, the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of Col-0 plants in the AD condition was not different from that of Col-0 plants in the AM condition (Figure 3A). The penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of pen2-1 plants in the AD condition was slightly higher, not significantly, than that of pen2-1 plants in the AM condition (Figure 3A).
Next, to determine whether the light/dark period following inoculation in the morning affected spore germination and appressorium formation of P. oryzae, we examined the spore germination rates and the appressorium formation rates at 72 hpi on leaves of Col-0 and pen2-1 plants. The spore germination rates on Col-0 and pen2-1 plants in the AD condition were significantly higher than those of plants in the AM condition (Figure 3B). However, the appressorium formation rates on Col-0 and pen2-1 plants in the AD condition were not different from those under the AM condition (Figure 3C). These results indicate that the dark period following the inoculation in the morning had little effect on the appressorium formation rates of P. oryzae.
Next, we investigated penetration resistance in Arabidopsis cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pm5gN mutant plants (Figure 3D). In these mutants, the penetration rates were higher than that of pen2-1 plants in the AM and AD conditions, suggesting the severely compromised NHR in these mutants in the morning inoculation. Moreover, the penetration rates in these mutants in the AD condition were significantly higher than those of the AM condition (Figure 3D and Figure S1). These results point out that the dark period after morning inoculation had significant suppressive effects on the penetration resistance in the AD condition. The suppression is primarily due to the dark condition’s effect on Arabidopsis but not on P. oryzae.
Our results indicate that the photoperiod after morning inoculation and evening inoculation would impact the Arabidopsis—P. oryzae interaction outcome in two ways. First, in the PL condition, the light period following the evening inoculation suppressed the proper development of P. oryzae, leading to an enhanced NHR in Arabidopsis (Figure 2). Second, in the AD condition, the dark period after morning inoculation had a suppression effect on penetration resistance in Arabidopsis (Figure 3D).

2.3. Genes Controlling Photoperiod-Dependent NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis

To identify genes responsible for controlling photoperiod-dependent NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis, we inoculated several pen2-1 double mutants (Table S1), which we had studied so far, under AM and AD conditions and examined their penetration resistance. These pen2-1 double mutants were grouped into the following three categories according to their functions: (1) Jasmonic acid (JA)-related and other defense-related genes (PAD1, JAR1, PMR5, and SOBIR1); (2) Reactive oxygen species (ROS)-related genes (AtRbohD and AtRbohF); and (3) Tryptophan (Trp)-derived metabolites-related genes (PAD3, PEN3, CYP79B2, and CYP79B3).
First, we compared the penetration rates of P. oryzae in leaves of all mutants between AM and AD conditions. In these mutants, except for pen2-1 pad3 mutant, the penetration rates of P. oryzae in leaves in the AD condition were significantly higher than those in the AM condition (Figure 4). This result suggests that NHR to P. oryzae in many pen2-1 double mutants was significantly suppressed in the AD condition compared with that in the AM condition. Second, we compared the penetration rates of P. oryzae in leaves of all pen2-1 double mutants with those in leaves of control Col-0 and pen2-1 plants in the AM condition. We found that the penetration rates in pen2-1 pad1 and cyp79B2 cyp79B3 mutants were significantly higher than those in leaves of control plants (Figure 4). This result indicates that PAD1, CYP79B2, and CYP79B3 are involved in NHR establishment in the AM condition. Third, we examined the penetration rates of P. oryzae in leaves of group 1 plants in the AD condition. In these mutants, except for pen2-1 sobir1, the penetration rates of P. oryzae into leaves were significantly higher than those in leaves of pen2-1 plants (Figure 4). This result indicates that PAD1, JAR1, and PMR5, but not SOBIR1, are involved in NHR establishment in the AD condition. Fourth, to study the ROS effect on NHR under the AD condition, we investigated group 2 plants. We found that only in pen2-1 35S:AtRbohD plants was the penetration rate of P. oryzae in leaves significantly higher than that in leaves of pen2-1 plants in the AD condition (Figure 4). However, we did not detect any differences between pen2-1 atrboh mutants and control pen2-1 plants (Figure 4). These results indicate that overexpressed AtRbohD-dependent ROS production influences NHR in the AD condition. Fifth, to study the effect of Trp-derived metabolites on NHR under AD condition, we examined group 3 plants. Among them, only in pen3 plants was the penetration rate of P. oryzae in leaves significantly higher than that in the leaves of pen2-1 plants under the AD condition (Figure 4). This result indicates that the PEN3-dependent pathway is required for NHR under the AD condition. Further, in cyp79B2 cyp79B3 plants, the penetration rate of P. oryzae in the leaves was significantly higher than that in the leaves of pen2-1 plants under the AD condition (Figure 4). The same result is observed in Figure 3D. These results imply that CYP79B2 and CYP79B3-dependent Trp-derived metabolite(s) is required for NHR establishment under the AD condition.

3. Discussion

We previously found that NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis varies with the inoculation time in diurnal conditions and shows that the circadian clock regulates NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis [35,36]. In this study, we investigated the photoperiod influence during early plant–pathogen interactions on NHR in Arabidopsis. We found that the duration of the light/dark period just after inoculation impacts the Arabidopsis—P. oryzae interaction. The presence of light after inoculation showed positive effects on NHR through repression of fungal development. The absence of light during the early interaction period entails suppressed resistance through plant resistance responses’ suppression. From the analysis of the results, we concluded that the light/dark period after inoculation, in addition to the circadian clock, affects Arabidopsis resistance. Indeed, a light period of a certain length following pathogen inoculation has been reported as a prerequisite for optimal defense in some plant–pathogen interactions [1,2]. As an example, in an incompatible interaction between rice and Xanthomonsa oryzae, a minimum of 8 h of light after pathogen inoculation was required for hypersensitive response (HR) and restriction of pathogen growth [5]. Furthermore, in Arabidopsis–Turnip crinkle virus interaction, >6 h of light after infection was required for HR and PR-1 expression [8]. These data indicate that photoperiod during early plant–pathogen interactions plays an important role in the establishment of defense responses.
In our previous report, we compared the appressorium formation rates of P. oryzae after the morning and the evening inoculation and discovered that the inoculation time had little effect on the appressorium formation rates of P. oryzae [35] (see Figure 2 and Figure 3). Thus, the differences in outcomes of the interaction between AM and PM conditions are primarily due to the inoculation time effect on Arabidopsis but not on the pathogen. However, in this study, we found that the appressorium formation rate of P. oryzae in the PL condition was significantly reduced compared with the PM condition (Figure 2). The light period continued until entering the dark period in the growth chamber in the PL condition. This result suggests that a prolonged light period (25 h) following pathogen inoculation suppresses the appressorium formation of P. oryzae. Future studies are needed to define the effect of light on fungal development.
In plants, the dark period would suppress the defense responses through a reduction in photosynthesis and following carbon starvation or light signal suppression. Indeed, the phyA phyB phyC mutant rice plants are more susceptible to P. oryzae compared with wild-type plants, indicating that phytochromes-dependent light perception and associated signaling pathways are required for resistance to P. oryzae in rice [38]. Moreover, phytochrome signaling controls systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis [39]. Furthermore, light/dark conditions affect defense responses through the regulation of chloroplast function. One of the reasons is that the synthetic pathways for some plant hormones, such as JA, salicylic acid (SA), and abscisic acid, depend on plastids [9]. Another reason is that ROS are produced from chloroplasts during stress conditions [9]. Thus, plant hormones and ROS are candidate factors that control NHR in a light/dark-dependent fashion. We found that JAR1 and PAD1 are involved in the regulation of NHR in the AD condition (Figure 4). JAR1 encodes a jasmonate-amido synthetase, which is a member of the GH3 family of proteins and catalyzes the formation of a biologically active jasmonyl-isoleucine conjugate [40]. PAD1 is involved in the JA signaling pathway [41]. Thus, a JA-mediated pathway would be required for establishing NHR in the AD condition. Moreover, we found that the overexpression of AtRbohD in pen2-1 plants led to the suppression of NHR in the AD condition (Figure 4). Arabidopsis AtRbohD and AtRbohF are NADPH oxidases, identified as key components of plant defenses [42,43]. Thus, ROS might act as a negative regulator of NHR in the AD condition. However, we did not detect differences in penetration rates between pen2-1 atrboh mutants and pen2-1 plants in AM and AD conditions. Further study will be needed to reveal the function of ROS in the establishment of NHR.
SOBIR1 functions as a coreceptor to control receptor-like kinase or receptor-like protein signaling networks and regulates plant immunity [44]. We did not detect significant differences in penetration rates between pen2-1 sobir1 mutant and pen2-1 mutant plants under AM and AD conditions. This result suggests that SOBIR1-dependent signal transduction does not play a major role in NHR establishment under these conditions.
In pen2-1 pen3 plants, the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves was slightly higher, not significantly, than in pen2-1 plants under AD condition; however, the penetration rate of P. oryzae into pen3 leaves was significantly higher than into leaves of Col-0 plants in the AD condition. If PEN2 and PEN3 work in concert in Arabidopsis–P. oryzae interaction, then it is expected that pen2-1, pen3, and pen2-1 pen3 have the same phenotype. However, only pen3 plants showed significantly compromised penetration resistance compared with control plants in the AD condition. This result suggests that the PEN3-dependent pathway, but not the PEN2-dependent pathway, is required for establishing proper NHR in the AD condition. It is assumed that the substrate(s) of PEN3 should not be exported in pen3 plants and that the failure would have a suppressive effect on NHR in the AD condition. As PEN3 functions redundantly with PLEIOTROPIC DRUG RESISTANCE (PDR) 12 in the export of camalexin in Arabidopsis [23], it is possible that camalexin is involved in NHR in the AD condition. However, although CYP71B15 (PAD3) catalyzes the rate-limiting steps of camalexin synthesis from IAOx [22], the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of pen2-1 pad3 plants was not different from that of pen2-1 plants under AM and AD conditions (Figure 4). This result suggests that camalexin is not involved in the establishment of NHR in these conditions. Moreover, although PEN3 is assumed to export CYP79B2 CYP79B3-dependent Trp-derived metabolite(s), the penetration rate of P. oryzae into leaves of cyp79B2 cyp79B3 plants was significantly higher than that of pen3 plants in the AD condition (Figure 4). This result suggests that the CYP79B2 CYP79B3-dependent but PEN3-independent pathway would also contribute to the establishment of NHR under AD condition.
We demonstrated that NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis varies with the inoculation time in diurnal conditions and that the circadian clock plays an important role in regulating time-of-day differences in NHR. In this study, we show that NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis is correlated positively with the light period during the early Arabidopsis—P. oryzae interaction and that the photoperiod plays a significant role in regulating time-of-day differences in NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis. The photoperiod might affect NHR through the regulation of JA, ROS, and Trp-derived metabolite(s) in Arabidopsis.
NHR is the most robust and durable resistance in plants. Future studies are needed to understand the genetic and mechanistic mechanisms, including the interaction between the circadian clock and photoperiod of NHR to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis. Thus, the mechanisms findings can be used to improve plants’ defense responses and contribute to the increased productivity of crop plants in the future.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Materials and Growth Conditions

The plants used in this study were Col-0 (wild-type), pen2-1 [18], pen2-1 pad1 [31], pen2-1 jar1 [31], pen2-1 pmr5 [31], pen2-1 sobir1 [45], pen2-1 atrbohd [33], pen2-1 atrbohf [33], pen2-1 35S:AtRbohD [43], pen3 (pdr8-1) [31], pen2-1 pen3, cyp79B2 cyp79B3 [25], and pen2-1 mol2 pmr5 gl1 NahG (pm5gN) [32], which are all on the Col-0 background. Arabidopsis mutants used to construct pen2-1 double mutants are listed in Table S1. We used pen2-1, pen3, and 35S:AtRbohD plants in the cross to generate pen2-1 double mutant plants.
Arabidopsis plants were grown on Murashige and Skoog plates in a growth room for three weeks in short-day length conditions (9:15 L:D) at 22 °C (in 100 umol m−2sec−1 fluorescent illumination). Then, the plants were transferred to soil and grown in a growth chamber for 4 weeks, where they continued to grow in short-day length conditions (9:15 L:D) at 22 °C (in 100 umol m−2s−1 fluorescent illumination).

4.2. Pathogen Inoculation and Analysis

We incubated P. oryzae isolate Hoku 1 (race 007) on an oatmeal agar media at 25 °C. Then, we inoculated Arabidopsis with P. oryzae by applying 5 uL droplets (5 × 104 spores/mL) of P. oryzae onto leaves (leaf number 8) of rosettes on Arabidopsis (i.e., leaves numbered from oldest to youngest) in the morning and the evening. Then, inoculated plants were maintained in a growth chamber with saturating humidity in short-day conditions (9 h:15 h light:dark) at 22 °C (in 100 umol m−2s−1 fluorescent illumination). Inoculated leaves were harvested at 72 h post-inoculation (hpi).
To quantify the spore germination rates and the appressorium formation rates of P. oryzae, we examined the fungal sporelings. This examination was performed on six leaves from six independent plants per experiment and genotype (minimum of 100 conidia/leaf evaluated). Experiments were repeated thrice.
To quantify cell penetration, we examined germinated fungal sporelings that had developed appressoria (six leaves from six independent plants per experiment and genotype). We evaluated a minimum of 100 appressoria/leaves. We detected successful penetration of P. oryzae by observing autofluorescence or hyphal elongation at infection sites with fluorescence and bright-field microscopy. Each plant genotype was quantified in three independent experiments.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/, Table S1: List of Arabidopsis mutants used to construct pen2-1 double mutants, Figure S1: Plant response to P. oryzae infection.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.I.; investigation, S.S., Y.Y., and A.I.; writing—original draft preparation, A.I.; writing—review and editing, A.I.; supervision, A.I.; project administration, A.I.; funding acquisition, A.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI (Grant No. 19K06057).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All data supporting this study are available in this paper and in its supplementary data published online.

Acknowledgments

We thank H. Koga (Ishikawa Prefectural University) for providing the P. oryzae isolate, P. Shulze-Lefert (Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research) for seeds of pen2-1, and Miguel Angel Torres (Universidad Politécnica de Madrid) for seeds of 35S:AtRbohD.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Roberts, M.R.; Paul, N.D. Seduced by the dark side: Integrating molecular and ecological perspectives on the influence of light on plant defence against pests and pathogens. New Phytol. 2006, 170, 677–699. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Roden, L.C.; Ingle, R.A. Lights, rhythms, infection: The role of light and the circadian clock in determining the outcome of plant-pathogen interactions. Plant Cell 2009, 21, 2546–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Ballaré, C.L. Light Regulation of Plant Defense. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2014, 65, 335–363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Mawphlang, O.I.L.; Kharshiing, E.V. Photoreceptor Mediated Plant. Growth Responses: Implications for Photoreceptor Engineering toward Improved Performance in Crops. Front Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Guo, A.; Reimers, P.; Leach, J. Effect of light on incompatible interactions between Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae and rice. Physiol. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 1993, 42, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Genoud, T.; Buchala, A.J.; Chua, N.H.; Metraux, J.P. Phytochrome signaling modulates the SA-perceptive pathway in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2002, 31, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zeier, J.; Pink, B.; Mueller, M.J.; Berger, S. Light conditions influence specific defence responses in incompatible plant-pathogen inter-actions: Uncoupling systemic resistance from salicylic acid and PR-1 accumulation. Planta 2004, 219, 673–683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Chandra-Shekara, A.; Navarre, R.; Kachroo, A.; Raina, S.; Raina, R.; Klessig, D.; Kachroo, P. Light dependent host defense sig-naling against Turnip Crinkle Virus in Arabidopsis. Phytopathology 2006, 96, S20. [Google Scholar]
  9. Littlejohn, G.R.; Breen, S.; Smirnoff, N.; Grant, M. Chloroplast immunity illuminated. New Phytol. 2021, 229, 3088–3107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Joseph, M.E.; Hering, T.F. Effects of environment on spore germination and infection by broad bean rust (Uromyces viciae-fabae). J. Agric. Sci. 1997, 128, 73–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tapsoba, H.; Wilson, J.P. Effects of temperature and light on germination of urediniospores of the pearl millet rust pathogen, Puccinia substriata var. indica. Plant Dis. 1997, 81, 1049–1052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Mueller, D.S.; Buck, J.W. Effects of light, temperature, and leaf wetness duration on daylily rust. Plant Dis. 2003, 87, 442–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Beyer, M.; Roding, S.; Ludewig, A.; Verreet, J.A. Germination and survival of Fusarium graminearum macroconidia as affected by environmental factors. Phytopathology 2004, 152, 92–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Buck, J.W.; Dong, W.; Mueller, D.S. Effect of light exposure on in vitro germination and germ tube growth of eight species of rust fungi. Mycologia 2010, 102, 1134–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ayliffe, M.; Sorensen, C.K. Plant. nonhost resistance: Paradigms and new environments. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2019, 50, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Panstruga, R.; Moscou, M.J. What is the Molecular Basis of Nonhost Resistance. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2020, 33, 1253–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Collins, N.C.; Thordal-Christensen, H.; Lipka, V.; Bau, S.; Kombrink, E.; Qiu, J.L.; Huckelhoven, R.; Stein, M.; Freialdenhoven, A.; Somerville, S.C.; et al. SNARE-protein-mediated disease resistance at the plant cell wall. Nature 2003, 425, 973–977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. Lipka, V.; Dittgen, J.; Bednarek, P.; Bhat, R.; Wiermer, M.; Stein, M.; Landtag, J.; Brandt, W.; Rosahl, S.; Scheel, D.; et al. Pre- and postinvasion defenses both contribute to nonhost resistance in Arabidopsis. Science 2005, 310, 1180–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Kobae, Y.; Sekino, T.; Yoshioka, H.; Nakagawa, T.; Martinoia, E.; Maeshima, M. Loss of AtPDR8, a plasma membrane ABC trans-porter of Arabidopsis thaliana, causes hypersensitive cell death upon pathogen infection. Plant Cell Physiol. 2006, 47, 309–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  20. Stein, M.; Dittgen, J.; Sanchez-Rodriguez, C.; Hou, B.H.; Molina, A.; Schulze-Lefert, P.; Lipka, V.; Somerville, S. Arabidopsis PEN3/PDR8, an ATP binding cassette transporter, contributes to nonhost resistance to inappropriate pathogens that enter by direct penetration. Plant Cell 2006, 18, 731–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Bednarek, P.; Pislewska-Bednarek, M.; Svatos, A.; Schneider, B.; Doubsky, J.; Mansurova, M.; Humphry, M.; Consonni, C.; Pan-struga, R.; Sanchez-Vallet, A.; et al. A glucosinolate metabolism pathway in living plant cells mediates broad-spectrum antifungal defense. Science 2009, 323, 101–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Zhou, N.; Tootle, T.L.; Glazebrook, J. Arabidopsis PAD3, a gene required for camalexin biosynthesis, encodes a putative cytochrome P450 monooxygenase. Plant Cell 1999, 11, 2419–2428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. He, Y.X.; Xu, J.; Wang, X.Y.; He, X.M.; Wang, Y.X.Y.; Zhou, J.G.; Zhang, S.Q.; Meng, X.Z. The Arabidopsis Pleiotropic Drug Re-sistance Transporters PEN3 and PDR12 Mediate Camalexin Secretion for Resistance to Botrytis cinerea. Plant Cell 2019, 31, 2206–2222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Pastorczyk, M.; Bednarek, P. The Function of Glucosinolates and Related Metabolites in Plant. Innate Immunity. Glucosinolates 2016, 80, 171–198. [Google Scholar]
  25. Zhao, Y.D.; Hull, A.K.; Gupta, N.R.; Goss, K.A.; Alonso, J.; Ecker, J.R.; Normanly, J.; Chory, J.; Celenza, J.L. Trp-dependent auxin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis: Involvement of cytochrome P450s CYP79B2 and CYP79B3. Genes. Dev. 2002, 16, 3100–3112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Sanchez-Vallet, A.; Ramos, B.; Bednarek, P.; Lopez, G.; Pislewska-Bednarek, M.; Schulze-Lefert, P.; Molina, A. Tryptophan-derived secondary metabolites in Arabidopsis thaliana confer non-host resistance to necrotrophic Plectosphaerella cucumerina fungi. Plant J. 2010, 63, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Hiruma, K.; Fukunaga, S.; Bednarek, P.; Pislewska-Bednarek, M.; Watanabe, S.; Narusaka, Y.; Shirasu, K.; Takano, Y. Glutathione and tryptophan metabolism are required for Arabidopsis immunity during the hypersensitive response to hemibiotrophs. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2013, 110, 9589–9594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Kosaka, A.; Pastorczyk, M.; Pislewska-Bednarek, M.; Nishiuchi, T.; Ono, E.; Suemoto, H.; Ishikawa, A.; Frerigmann, H.; Kaido, M.; Mise, K.; et al. Tryptophan-derived metabolites and BAK1 separately contribute to Arabidopsis postinvasive immunity against Alternaria bras-sicicola. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 1488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Koga, H. Cytological aspects of infection by the rice blast fungus Pyricularia oryzae. In Major Fungal Diseases of Rice: Recent Advances; Sreenivasaprasad, S., Johnson, R., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2001; pp. 87–110. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ebbole, D.J. Magnaporthe as a Model for Understanding Host-Pathogen Interactions. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2007, 45, 437–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Maeda, K.; Houjyou, Y.; Komatsu, T.; Hori, H.; Kodaira, T.; Ishikawa, A. AGB1 and PMR5 contribute to PEN2-mediated preinvasion resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 1331–1340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Nakao, M.; Nakamura, R.; Kita, K.; Inukai, R.; Ishikawa, A. Non-host resistance to penetration and hyphal growth of Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis. Sci. Rep. 2011, 1, 171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  33. Nozaki, M.; Kita, K.; Kodaira, T.; Ishikawa, A. AtRbohF contributes to non-host resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2013, 77, 1323–1325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Takahashi, T.; Murano, T.; Ishikawa, A. SOBIR1 and AGB1 independently contribute to nonhost resistance to Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2018, 82, 1922–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Yamauchi, Y.; Makihara, M.; Ishikawa, A. Leaf age and time of inoculation contribute to nonhost resistance to Pyricularia oryzae in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant. Biotechnol. 2017, 34, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Yamaura, S.; Yamauchi, Y.; Makihara, M.; Yamashino, T.; Ishikawa, A. CCA1 and LHY contribute to nonhost resistance to Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) in Arabidopsis thaliana. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2020, 84, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kim, C.; Yoshino, R.; Mogi, S. The effects of light and darkness on the infection of rice blast fungus, Pyricularia oryzae. Proc. Assoc. Plant Prot. Hokuriku 1974, 22, 3–6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Xie, X.Z.; Xue, Y.J.; Zhou, J.J.; Zhang, B.; Chang, H.; Takano, M. Phytochromes Regulate SA and JA Signaling Pathways in Rice and Are Required for Developmentally Controlled Resistance to Magnaporthe grisea. Mol. Plant 2011, 4, 688–696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Griebel, T.; Zeier, J. Light regulation and daytime dependency of inducible plant defenses in arabidopsis: Phytochrome signaling controls systemic acquired resistance rather than local defense. Plant Physiol. 2008, 147, 790–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  40. Staswick, P.E.; Tiryaki, I.; Rowe, M.L. Jasmonate Response Locus JAR1 and Several Related Arabidopsis Genes Encode Enzymes of the Firefly Luciferase Superfamily That Show Activity on Jasmonic, Salicylic, and Indole-3-Acetic Acids in an Assay for Adenylation. Plant Cell 2002, 14, 1405–1415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Glazebrook, J.; Chen, W.J.; Estes, B.; Chang, H.S.; Nawrath, C.; Metraux, J.P.; Zhu, T.; Katagiri, F. Topology of the network inte-grating salicylate and jasmonate signal transduction derived from global expression phenotyping. Plant J. 2003, 34, 217–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Torres, M.A.; Dangl, J.L.; Jones, J.D.G. Arabidopsis gp91phox homologues AtrbohD and AtrbohF are required for accumulation of reactive oxygen intermediates in the plant defense response. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2002, 99, 517–522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Torres, M.A.; Jones, J.D.G.; Dangl, J.L. Pathogen-induced, NADPH oxidase-derived reactive oxygen intermediates suppress spread of cell death in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat. Genet. 2005, 37, 1130–1134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Liebrand, T.W.; Burg, H.A.V.D.; Joosten, M.H. Two for all: Receptor-associated kinases SOBIR1 and BAK1. Trends Plant. Sci. 2014, 19, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Takahashi, T.; Shibuya, H.; Ishikawa, A. SOBIR1 contributes to non-host resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae in Arabidopsis. Biosci. Biotechnol. Biochem. 2016, 80, 1577–1579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Ijms 22 05004 g001 550
Figure 1. Time scheme used in this study. (A) Illustration of daytimes of P. oryzae inoculation. Arabidopsis plants were inoculated at 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (B) Illustration of light–dark conditions and inoculation times during the experiments. The illustration depicts light regime and inoculation times until day 2. Inoculation was done on day 0, and leaves were harvested on day 3. AM: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 10:00 a.m.; AD: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 10:00 a.m. and transferred to continuous darkness until entering the light period in the growth chamber; PM: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 5:00 p.m.; PL: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 5:00 p.m. and transferred to continuous lightness until entering the dark period in the growth chamber. White and black boxes correspond to light and dark periods, respectively. Arrowheads and bottom numbers indicate the inoculation times.
Figure 1. Time scheme used in this study. (A) Illustration of daytimes of P. oryzae inoculation. Arabidopsis plants were inoculated at 10:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. (B) Illustration of light–dark conditions and inoculation times during the experiments. The illustration depicts light regime and inoculation times until day 2. Inoculation was done on day 0, and leaves were harvested on day 3. AM: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 10:00 a.m.; AD: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 10:00 a.m. and transferred to continuous darkness until entering the light period in the growth chamber; PM: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 5:00 p.m.; PL: Arabidopsis plants inoculated at 5:00 p.m. and transferred to continuous lightness until entering the dark period in the growth chamber. White and black boxes correspond to light and dark periods, respectively. Arrowheads and bottom numbers indicate the inoculation times.
Ijms 22 05004 g001
Ijms 22 05004 g002 550
Figure 2. Quantitative analyses of penetration resistance to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis plants inoculated in the evening. (A) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 plants at 72 h post-inoculation (hpi) expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. (B) Spore germination rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (C) Appressorium formation rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (D) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pen2-1 mol2 pmr5 gl1 NahG (pm5gN) (pm5gN) plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: PM inoculation; white bar: PL inoculation. Values marked with asterisks (PL inoculation) are significantly different from respective PM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Quantitative analyses of penetration resistance to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis plants inoculated in the evening. (A) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 plants at 72 h post-inoculation (hpi) expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. (B) Spore germination rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (C) Appressorium formation rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (D) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pen2-1 mol2 pmr5 gl1 NahG (pm5gN) (pm5gN) plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: PM inoculation; white bar: PL inoculation. Values marked with asterisks (PL inoculation) are significantly different from respective PM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Ijms 22 05004 g002
Ijms 22 05004 g003 550
Figure 3. Quantitative analyses of penetration resistance to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis plants inoculated in the morning. (A) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. (B) Spore germination rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (C) Appressorium formation rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (D) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pm5gN plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: AD inoculation; white bar: AM inoculation. Values marked with asterisks (AD inoculation) are significantly different from respective AM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Quantitative analyses of penetration resistance to P. oryzae in Arabidopsis plants inoculated in the morning. (A) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. (B) Spore germination rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (C) Appressorium formation rates on Col-0 (wild-type) and pen2-1 leaves at 72 hpi. Rates are expressed as a percentage of the total number of conidia. (D) Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into cyp79B2 cyp79B3 and pm5gN plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: AD inoculation; white bar: AM inoculation. Values marked with asterisks (AD inoculation) are significantly different from respective AM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Ijms 22 05004 g003
Ijms 22 05004 g004 550
Figure 4. Penetration resistance to P. oryzae in pen2-1 double mutants inoculated in the morning. Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type), pen2-1, pen2-1 double mutants, pen3, and cyp79B2 cyp79B3 plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: AD inoculation; white bar: AM inoculation. Significantly different statistical groups of genotypes indicated by the analyses of variance (Tukey’s test; p < 0.05) are shown with lowercase (AM inoculation) and uppercase (AD inoculation) letters. Values marked with asterisks (AD inoculation) are significantly different from respective AM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Penetration resistance to P. oryzae in pen2-1 double mutants inoculated in the morning. Mean frequency of P. oryzae penetration into Col-0 (wild-type), pen2-1, pen2-1 double mutants, pen3, and cyp79B2 cyp79B3 plants at 72 hpi expressed as a percentage of the total number of infection sites. Values are expressed as mean ± standard error from three independent experiments, each containing six biological replicates (n = 18). Black bar: AD inoculation; white bar: AM inoculation. Significantly different statistical groups of genotypes indicated by the analyses of variance (Tukey’s test; p < 0.05) are shown with lowercase (AM inoculation) and uppercase (AD inoculation) letters. Values marked with asterisks (AD inoculation) are significantly different from respective AM inoculation-controls (Student’s t-test; p < 0.05).
Ijms 22 05004 g004
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shimizu, S.; Yamauchi, Y.; Ishikawa, A. Photoperiod Following Inoculation of Arabidopsis with Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) Influences on the Plant–Pathogen Interaction. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 5004. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22095004

AMA Style

Shimizu S, Yamauchi Y, Ishikawa A. Photoperiod Following Inoculation of Arabidopsis with Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) Influences on the Plant–Pathogen Interaction. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2021; 22(9):5004. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22095004

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shimizu, Sayaka, Yuri Yamauchi, and Atsushi Ishikawa. 2021. "Photoperiod Following Inoculation of Arabidopsis with Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) Influences on the Plant–Pathogen Interaction" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22, no. 9: 5004. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22095004

APA Style

Shimizu, S., Yamauchi, Y., & Ishikawa, A. (2021). Photoperiod Following Inoculation of Arabidopsis with Pyricularia oryzae (syn. Magnaporthe oryzae) Influences on the Plant–Pathogen Interaction. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 22(9), 5004. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms22095004

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop