Skip to content

Advertisement

  • Research article
  • Open Access

Meloidogyne javanica fatty acid- and retinol-binding protein (Mj-FAR-1) regulates expression of lipid-, cell wall-, stress- and phenylpropanoid-related genes during nematode infection of tomato

BMC Genomics201516:272

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1426-3

  • Received: 24 July 2014
  • Accepted: 2 March 2015
  • Published:

Abstract

Background

The secreted Meloidogyne javanica fatty acid- and retinol-binding (FAR) protein Mj-FAR-1 is involved in nematode development and reproduction in host tomato roots. To gain further insight into the role of Mj-FAR-1 in regulating disease development, local transcriptional changes were monitored in tomato hairy root lines with constitutive mj-far-1 expression compared with control roots without inoculation, and 2, 5 and 15 days after inoculation (DAI), using mRNA sequencing analysis.

Results

Gene-expression profiling revealed a total of 3970 differentially expressed genes (DEGs) between the two lines. Among the DEGs, 1093, 1039, 1959, and 1328 genes were up- or downregulated 2-fold with false discovery rate < 0.001 in noninoculated roots, and roots 2, 5, and 15 DAI compared with control roots, respectively. Four main groups of genes that might be associated with Mj-FAR-1-mediated susceptibility were identified: 1) genes involved in biotic stress responses such as pathogen-defense mechanisms and hormone metabolism; 2) genes involved in phenylalanine and phenylpropanoid metabolism; 3) genes associated with cell wall synthesis, modification or degradation; and 4) genes associated with lipid metabolism. All of these genes were overrepresented among the DEGs. Studying the distances between the treatments, samples from noninoculated roots and roots at 2 DAI clustered predominantly according to the temporal dynamics related to nematode infection. However, at the later time points (5 and 15 DAI), samples clustered predominantly according to mj-far-1 overexpression, indicating that at these time points Mj-FAR-1 is more important in defining a common transcriptome.

Conclusions

The presence of four groups of DEGs demonstrates a network of molecular events is mediated by Mj-FAR-1 that leads to highly complex manipulation of plant defense responses against nematode invasion. The results shed light on the in vivo role of secreted FAR proteins in parasitism, and add to the mounting evidence that secreted FAR proteins play a major role in nematode parasitism.

Keywords

  • Fatty acid- and retinol-binding protein
  • Nematode–host interaction
  • RNA-Seq
  • Plant defense mechanism
  • Meloidogyne
  • Parasitism
  • Effector

Background

Among the most devastating plant-parasitic nematodes are the sedentary Meloidogyne root-knot nematodes (RKNs), which are obligate biotrophs [1]. These parasites interact with their hosts in a subtle and sophisticated manner that is achieved by sustaining a constitutive dialog with select host cells in the vascular cylinder. These cells are the nematode feeding sites, termed giant cells (GCs), upon which nematode development and reproduction rely [2-4]. Although the mechanism by which RKNs establish the GC system is unknown, increasing evidence indicates that glandular secretions (effectors) injected into plant cells by the nematodes interact directly or indirectly with essential plant components, leading to the establishment and maintenance of nematode feeding sites [5-9]. Two esophageal gland types are involved in producing effectors: two subventral glands and one dorsal gland [6]. Other organs in contact with the external environment that produce secretory proteins include the amphids and cuticle. In the last two decades, several cuticle proteins from plant-parasitic nematodes have been identified, including some that are important for parasitism [10-13]. To ensure successful nematode development and reproduction, the nematode-induced feeding-site structure must be maintained for up to 6 weeks, which requires continuous suppression of the plant defense response throughout this period. Suppression of plant defense genes after RKN infection has been demonstrated in microarray studies [14], but the mechanism governing this suppression remains elusive. Two major pathogen-defense-signaling pathways that have been extensively studied are the salicylic acid (SA)-dependent pathway and a SA-independent pathway that involves jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) [15,16]. These pathways crosstalk via a complex network of regulatory interactions, and are susceptible to continuous manipulation by plant pathogens for the promotion of virulence and disease production [16].

A group of proteins termed fatty acid- and retinol-binding (FAR) proteins, secreted by all trophic groups of nematodes, have long been acknowledged for their potential function in host immunomodulation [17-23]. FAR proteins are of major interest for several reasons. i) They may play an important role in scavenging fatty acids and retinol for the survival of the parasite [20]. ii) They may induce localized depletion of essential lipids such as oxylipins, thereby compromising the host’s defensive immune response [11,24]. iii) They are located at the host–parasite interface [18]. iv) Their structure is unique to the nematode phylum and is unlike that of any other known family of lipid-binding proteins [18,19,21,25]. Together with their presence in multiple families of parasitic nematodes, these findings lend support to the notion that this nematode-restricted family of proteins plays a crucial role in host parasitism [18].

The role played by plant-parasitic FAR proteins in negating the plant’s defense response was first studied for the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida FAR (Gp-FAR-1) demonstrating lipid-binding activity of Gp-FAR-1 to linoleic and linolenic acids, and inhibition of lipoxygenase (LOX)-mediated modification of these substrates in vitro [11]. More recently, a functional analysis of the role of Meloidogyne javanica FAR (Mj-FAR-1) in RKN–plant interactions was performed [26]. The spike in expression of mj-far-1 by the parasitic nematode M. javanica second-stage juveniles (J2) at 3–5 days after inoculation (DAI), together with its abundant deposition in the apoplast during the sedentary stages, suggests a primary role for this effector protein in the early and late stages of the host–parasite interaction. Moreover, constitutive expression of mj-far-1 in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) hairy roots renders plants more susceptible to infection by M. javanica [26]. Increased host susceptibility to nematode infection following the overexpression of nematode parasitism genes has been documented [27,28], suggesting that an excess of some effector proteins enhances a compatible host–parasite interaction via modulation of the plant stress [28] and defense [27] responses. Despite extensive research into the functional role of plant-parasitic FAR proteins [11,26], little is known about the molecular mechanisms underlying the increased susceptibility response in mj-far-1-expressing roots. To further clarify the increased susceptibility in a root line expressing mj-far-1 in response to M. javanica infection, we analyzed gene expression in roots of transgenic tomato differing in their constitutive expression of the nematode mj-far-1. Many of the genes that were differentially regulated in mj-far-1-expressing roots were tomato genes known to play important roles in pathogen-mediated defense responses. These responses involve physicochemical processes, such as cell wall regulation and modification, and biochemical responses such as biosynthesis and regulation of compounds associated with fatty acids and the phenylpropanoid-signaling pathways. Our results provide insights into the transcription-regulation events, driven by Mj-FAR-1 secreted by the invading nematode, that facilitate nematode development and disease production in the host plant.

Results

Transcriptomic data collection and analysis

Our experimental system exploited the higher susceptibility of roots overexpressing mj-far-1 upon M. javanica infection [26] to characterize mj-far-1-mediated differences in gene expression during the M. javanica infection process. Root samples of vector 11.5 carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan control roots) and mj-far-1.1 lines overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE roots) from in vitro-infected tomato root cultures were harvested at 2, 5, and 15 DAI. Equivalent root segments from noninoculated root cultures of both lines were used as reference root tissues. At 5 DAI, the harvested samples of root tips or segments showed prominent swelling, an indication of nematode invasion and establishment (Figure 1A,B). At 15 DAI, mature galls on primary roots were hand-dissected (Figure 1C,D). As reported previously [26], accelerated disease development was observed for OE roots compared with Kan roots, as indicated by increased gall incidence (Figure 1C,D). To monitor the expression levels of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) with disease progression, and to evaluate the effect of mj-far-1 overexpression, which underlies the increase in susceptibility, changes in gene expression were investigated by directly comparing noninoculated OE and Kan roots (Figure 1E, comparison 1). Similarly, expression profiles of OE and Kan roots were compared at designated time points after inoculation (Figure 1E, comparisons 2–4). In addition, noninoculated Kan and OE root gene-expression profiles were compared to those upon inoculation of the same root line at 2, 5, and 15 DAI (Figure 1E, comparisons 5–10). RNA was extracted for transcriptome analysis as described in Experimental procedures and RNA-Seq was performed on the Illumina HiSeq™ 2000 platform, yielding an average of 26.6 million high-quality reads per sample (Table 1). Paired-end transcript sequences were mapped against the International Tomato Annotation Group (ITAG) Solanum lycopersicum protein reference version 2.3 (http://solgenomics.net) with SOAPaligner/SOAP2 [29]. Gene expression was quantified as the total number of reads (paired-end) from each sample that uniquely align to the transcriptome reference of ITAG2.3 using the aligner SOAP2. An average 20.1 million reads from paired-end sequencing uniquely aligned to the reference sample, and represented an average of 75.6% of the total reads (Table 1) used in the bioinformatics analysis.
Figure 1
Figure 1

Plant material used for RNA-Seq analysis and the experimental design for complete tomato RNA-Seq profiling of tomato root lines carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan) or overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE) inoculated with Meloidogyne javanica . A representative 5 DAI gall used for RNA extraction on roots of the tomato control Kan (A) and OE line (B) following inoculation with Meloidogyne javanica. Arrows indicate segments collected for RNA extraction. Bars = 150 μm. Late infection stage of the tomato control Kan line (C) and OE line (D) as shown at 15 DAI. Note the increased size and density of galls on the OE vs. Kan roots. (E) Schematic representation of the experimental procedure. Four comparisons (1–4) between control Kan and OE lines were performed at each time point: 0, 2, 5, and 15 DAI. In addition, the reference tissue of each root line was directly compared with the transcript profile of the same root line at 2, 5, and 15 DAI: comparisons 5–7 for Kan and 8–10 for OE lines.

Table 1

Alignment of RNA-Seq reads to the ITAG2.3 reference transcriptome

Treatment

Non-inoculated

2 DAI

5 DAI

15 DAI

Root lines

OE

KAN

OE

KAN

OE

KAN

OE

KAN

High Quality Paired-End Reads

27,267,694

27,277,056

25,641,052

26,805,144

26,170,776

26,498,432

26,382,764

26,932,422

Uniquely Aligned Reads

20,798,101

20,941,168

19,677,396

20,722,903

19,444,292

20,150,007

19,296,181

20,207,686

Total Unmapped Reads

6,071,686

5,911,916

5,568,661

5,679,513

6,306,052

5,877,328

6,581,004

6,168,739

The number of paired-end and uniquely aligned sequence reads analyzed from Illumina sequencing runs of all eight samples are arranged by treatment type (noninoculated, and 2, 5, and 15 DAI) and root line.

mj-far-1-mediated differences in gene expression

To assess the regulation of tomato transcripts by Mj-FAR-1, differential expression analysis (see Figure 1E for all comparisons conducted) was performed between inoculated and noninoculated OE and Kan root lines. For the calling of differentially regulated genes, the false discovery rate (FDR) threshold was set to ≤0.001 and log2 ratio ≥ 1. The number of DEGs, both upregulated (>1-fold) and downregulated (<1-fold), increased with time after inoculation for both OE and Kan root lines (Figure 2A). Based on Venn diagrams (Figure 2B–D), a total of 3970 DEGs were identified in OE compared with Kan root lines using FDR ≤ 0.001. The number of DEGs common to the OE root line alone and the OE root–nematode interactions is indicated in the overlapping portions of the circles. Of the 3970 genes, 2069 were upregulated and 2205 were downregulated in OE vs. Kan lines for all inoculated and noninoculated samples. The numbers of upregulated genes in noninoculated OE samples and those at 2, 5, and 15 DAI compared with the Kan roots at the same time points were 324, 225, 1241, and 707, respectively (Figure 2C). The numbers of downregulated genes of noninoculated OE samples and those inoculated at 2, 5, and 15 DAI compared with Kan roots were 769, 814, 718, and 621, respectively (Figure 2D). A total of 61 upregulated and downregulated genes overlapped between all noninoculated and inoculated OE root samples (Figure 2B, Table 2). These genes might contribute to the mj-far-1-associated increase in susceptibility in the mj-far1.1 root line. Among this group were genes involved in fatty acid metabolism, such as those encoding the long-chain fatty acid-CoA ligase (Solyc08g008310.2.1) and the lipid-modification enzyme lipase (Solyc05g018770.1.1). In addition, a group of hormone signal-related genes that were differentially regulated in OE roots included JA-related genes, such as a gene encoding a proteinase inhibitor (Solyc03g098710.1.1), and auxin-related genes, such as the gene encoding indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase (Solyc02g092820.2.1). Other genes involved in plant defense that encoded the WRKY transcription factor (Solyc05g053380.2.1), a pathogenesis-related (PR) gene (Solyc09g007020.1.1), and a gene involved in the phenylalanine pathway (Solyc02g081800.1.1) showed consistent differential regulation among the treatments (Table 2). An additional group of genes that might shed light on mj-far-1 regulation of gene expression constituted DEGs unique to inoculated samples, in which a total of 52 upregulated and downregulated genes overlapped only among inoculated OE roots (Table 3). This group included genes involved in cell wall modification and remodeling, such as those encoding expansin-like proteins (Solyc08g07790 0.2.1and Solyc03g093390.2.1) and cell wall protein (CWP) (Solyc09g097770.2), hormone-related genes such as those encoding auxin-responsive protein (Solyc08g021820.2.1) and gibberellin synthesis (Solyc12g042980.1.1), a gene of the phenylpropanoid pathway encoding chalcone synthase (CHS) (Solyc05g053550.2.1), and defense-related genes such as those encoding pathogenesis-related proteins (Solyc07g006710.1.1 and Solyc01g106640.2.1). Changes associated with fatty acid metabolism that were restricted to the inoculated root samples included genes encoding the fatty acid elongase 3-ketoacyl-CoA synthase (Solyc03g005320.2.1) and the nonspecific lipid-transfer protein (Solyc06g054070.2.1) (Table 3).
Figure 2
Figure 2

Regulation of differentially expressed genes among inoculated, noninoculated of mj-far-1 overexpressing and control roots. (A) Comparison of differentially regulated genes from RNA-Seq data between tomato root lines at each designated time point. Numbers of up- and downregulated genes are indicated from 10 comparisons. (B) A generalized Venn diagram showing intersection of genes that are differentially regulated (up- and downregulated) in mj-far1.1 root line compared with vector 11.5 control roots among noninoculated, 2, 5, and 15 DAI samples. (C) Intersection of genes that are upregulated in the mj-far1.1 root line compared with vector 11.5 control roots among noninoculated, 2, 5, and 15 DAI samples. (D) Intersection of genes that are downregulated in mj-far1.1 root line compared with vector 11.5 control roots among noninoculated, 2, 5, and 15 DAI samples. Genes present in two sets are shown in the intersection, so that the sum of the numbers within a circle is the total number of genes in that set. The size of the circles is not representative of the quantity of probe sets. Overlapping areas represent common probe sets. Fold change with an absolute value >2 and P value ≤ 0.05 was used for the analyses.

Table 2

Differentially expressed genes common to noninoculated and inoculated mj-far-1 -overexpressing root line and their functional categories

Functional categories

Sub-category

Gene ID

OE1-KAN1

OE2-KAN2

OE3-KAN3

OE4-KAN4

Annotation

Cell Wall

Proteins LLR

Solyc07g053840.1.1

-2.44

-2.20

-9.83

-2.24

LRP receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase , RLP

Cellulose synthesis COBRA

Solyc03g114900.2.1

-1.22

-1.19

-2.29

-1.46

COBRA-like protein

Degradation pectate lyase and polygalacturonases

Solyc12g096750.1.1

-2.32

-3.37

-1.90

-7.01

Polygalacturonase 4

Modification

Solyc10g086520.1.1

-1.23

-1.49

-1.81

-1.02

Expansin-1

UDP glucosyl and glucoronyl transferase

Solyc05g053400.1.1

2.20

2.57

1.15

3.53

Glucosyltransferase

Cell organization

Chloroplast location

Solyc06g062400.1.1

2.12

1.65

2.26

1.70

Cloroplast unusual positioning 1A

Development

Nodule formation

Solyc05g055540.1.1

2.94

1.64

2.54

1.99

Nodulin family protein

unkown

Solyc06g082460.1.1

-1.90

-1.29

-1.11

-1.46

Plant-specific domain TIGRO1568 family protein

Hormone metabolism

Auxin induced/regulated/responsive

Solyc02g092820.2.1

-2.99

-1.80

-4.29

-5.59

Indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase GH3.8

Solyc12g005310.1.1

-2.75

-1.18

-3.60

-4.05

Auxin-responsive GH3-like

Ethylene synthesis/degradation

Solyc09g010000.2.1

1.42

1.80

1.87

1.11

1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase-like protein

Solyc11g072310.1.1

1.51

1.45

1.41

1.72

Gibberellin 20 -oxidase-3

Solyc06g073580.2.1

-3.78

-1.50

-1.01

1.16

1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase-like protein

Jasmonic acid induced/regulated/responsive

Solyc03g098710.1.1

-4.38

-1.50

-2.09

2.49

Kunitz-type proteinase inhibitor A4 (Fragment)

Solyc03g098720.2.1

-10.39

-1.72

-10.48

4.26

Kunitz trypsin inhibitor

Lipid metabolism

FA Synthesis and FA Elongation

Solyc08g008310.2.1

-3.21

-2.93

-3.52

-3.27

Long-chain-fatty-acid-CoA ligase

Phospholipid synthesis

Solyc12g040790.1.1

-1.07

-1.19

-1.40

2.19

Menaquinone biosynthesis methyltransfere ubiE

Lipid modification

Solyc05g018770.1.1

-2.58

-12.08

-10.93

-4.19

Esterase/lipase/thioesterase (Fragment)

N-metabolism/degradation

Glutamate dehydrogenase

Solyc05g052100.2.1

-5.33

-11.68

-2.12

-1.56

Glutamate dehydrogenase

Phosphotransfer and Pyrophoshatases guanylate kinase

Solyc10g79140.1.1

1.30

1.75

2.57

2.48

Guanylate kinase

NUDIX hydrolases

Solyc07g045430.2.1

2.34

2.61

1.62

-2.97

Nudix hydrolase 2

Polyamine metabolism

SAM/decarboxylase

Solyc06g054460.1.1

-1.37

-2.12

-1.17

-1.96

S-adenosylmethionine decarboxylase proenzyme

Spermidine/synthase

Solyc06g053510.2.1

-5.21

-2.87

-1.88

1.21

Spermidine synthase

Protein metabolism

Protease

Solyc05g016250.2.1

-11.21

-11.18

-11.08

-9.72

Cysteine-type peptidase

Solyc07g066500.1.1

11.02

9.87

4.88

11.14

U1p1 protease family C-terminal catalytic domain containing protein

Solyc01g057880.1.1

-4.10

-5.48

-3.35

-4.10

U1p1 protease family C-terminal catalytic domain containing protein

Postranslational modification

Solyc08g066400.1.1

-10.91

-10.97

-10.39

-10.64

Protein kinase (Fragment)

Solyc03g083800.1.1

5.01

10.74

5.59

11.45

Serine/threonine-protein phosphatase 7 long form homolog

Targeting

Solyc12g096550.1.1

1.20

1.10

1.23

1.11

Pheophorbide a oxygenase family

Transcription factor

GeBP like

Solyc07g052900.1.1

1.21

1.55

1.66

1.96

Os09g0451700 protein (Fragment)

Solyc07g052700.2.1

2.84

2.57

4.21

2.30

MADS-box transcription factor 1

MADS box transcription factor/family

Solyc02g089200.2.1

4.79

3.11

5.74

4.14

MADS-box transcription factor

Solyc07g052720.2.1

3.67

2.31

4.65

2.99

MADS-box protein AGL66

Putative transcription regulator

Solyc10g051140.1.1

-1.94

-2.58

-1.90

-1.81

Genomic DNA chromosome 5 P1 clone MTE17

WRKY domain transcription factor family

Solyc05g053380.2.1

-2.30

-1.99

1.60

-2.02

WRKY transcription factor 31

unknown

Solyc01g100440.1.1

2.07

1.33

1.89

2.42

Transcription regulatory protein SNF5

Secondary metabolism

Isoflavone reductase

Solyc10g052500.1.1

-4.36

-510

-3.32

-4.16

Phenylcoumaran benzylic ether reductase 3

Isoprenoids/terpenoids

Solyc10g005390.2.1

1.86

1.47

2.96

2.67

Linalool synthase

Phenylpropanoids

Solyc02g08100.1.1

2.24

2.86

3.13

1.41

Acyltransferase (Fragment)

Signaling

Sugar and nutrien phisiology

Solyc12g099780.1.1

-1.69

-1.48

1.91

1.05

Unknown Protein

Receptor kinase leucine rich repeat XI

Solyc12g009780.1.1

8.74

3.37

3.18

8.43

LRR receptor-like serine/ threonine-protein kinase, RLP

Abiotic stress

Heat stress

Solyc06g011400.2.1

4.54

2.57

4.40

2.45

ATP-dependent chaperone c1pB

Solyc06g11380.2.1

5.99

3.67

4.70

2.51

Chaperone C1pB

Solyc06g011370.2.1

3.86

3.46

3.52

2.25

Chaperone protein clpB 2

Plant defence

Pathogen attack response

Solyc09g007020.1.1

1.70

1.24

1.07

1.14

Pathogenesis-related protein

Pathogen resistance

Solyc07g009510.1.1

2.56

2.44

1.76

1.05

Chitinase

Gene to gene resistance/recognation

Solyc12g044190.1.1

1.07

1.33

2.37

2.18

Nbs-lrr, resistance protein

Redox state

Solyc01g081250.2.1

1.22

1.02

1.34

1.08

Glutathione-S-transferase

Solyc03g116120.1.1

2.80

1.87

2.18

1.99

Glutathione S-transferase 12

Solyc08g014330.2.1

-2.24

-1.19

-1.06

1.08

Primary amine oxidase

unknown

Solyc01g017600.2.1

-2.17

-5.86

-10.57

1.48

Plant viral-response family protein

Transport

Amino acids

Solyc01g100390.2.1

2.12

2.04

2.63

1.21

Pyrophosphate-energized proton pump

Peptides and oligopeptides

Solyc03g113430.2.1

1.63

1.24

3.70

1.28

Peptide transporter

unknown

Solyc01g73670.2.1

-1,60

-1.63

-1.98

1.22

Uncharacterized MFS-type transporter C19orf28

Protease inhibitor/seed storage /lipid transfer protein (LTP) family protein

Solyc03g083990.1.1

-2.08

1.15

1.25

-2.66

Cortical cell-delineating protein

Not assigned

unknown

Solyc04g015610.2.1

-1.89

-1.27

-1.50

-3.73

Os01g0611000 protein (Fragment)

Solyc10g080380.1.1

-1.53

-3.73

-3.61

-1.55

Unknown Protein

Solyc07g007770.1.1

-6.36

-5.19

-5.23

-4.54

Unknown Protein

Solyc09g091810.1.1

-2.80

-1.29

-1.62

-2.78

Unknown Protein

Solyc01g056370.2.1

12.79

12.99

13.67

13.64

Unknown Protein

Solyc05g052880.2.1

1.93

1.37

1.89

3.33

Unknown Protein

Gene ID number and log2 values at each time point before and after inoculation are indicated. All genes were considered to be differentially expressed with a threshold q-value < 0.05.

Table 3

Differentially expressed genes upon M. javanica inoculation

Functional categories

Sub-category

Gene ID

OE2-KAN2

OE3-KAN3

OE4-KAN4

Annotation

TCA/ org. transformation

Carbonic anhydrases

solyc02g067750.2.1

1.99565

2.704447

2.324205

Carbonic anhydrase

Cell wall

Degradation pectate lyases and polygalacturonases

solyc08g068150.2.1

-1.17686

1.198919

1.5876

BURP domain-containing protein

Modification

solyc08g077900.2.1

-1.5738

-1.34033

-1.07768

Expansin-like protein

solyc03g093390.2.1

-1.23629

-1.69975

1.122155

Expansin protein

Lipid metabolism

FA synthesis and FA elongation

solyc03g005320.2.1

-1.21734

1.118395

1.412513

Fatty acid elongase 3-ketoacyl-CoA synthase

Lipid degradation

solyc01g100020.2.1

-1.6392

-1.60844

-1.23022

Phospholipase D

Amino acid metabolism

Synthesis

solyc01g006620.2.1

-1.39285

1.576919

1.629744

Phosphoribosylanthranilate trnasferase

Secondary metabolism

Flavonoids

solyc05g053550.2.1

2.880173

1.665111

-1.64308

Chalcone synthase

Simple phenols

solyc06go76760.1.1

-1.14152

1.327023

1.041531

Laccase 1a

Hormone metabolism

Gibberelin synthesis/degradation

solyc12g042980.1.1

-2.48967

-2.80308

-1.41139

2-oxoglutarate- dependent dioxygenase

Tetrapyrrole synthesis

Unspecified

solyc12g005300.1.1

-1.37617

-1.44432

1.099574

Chlorophyllase 2

Plant Defense

Gen to resistance/recognition

solyc11g0066401.1

-2.44176

1.276086-

1.705295

Cc-nbs-lrr, resistance protein

 

solyc07g006710.1.1

-1.12202

-2.25906

-1.15715

Pathogenesis-related protein PR-1

Pathogen attack response

solyc01g106640.2.1

-1.43339

-2.26051

-3.62562

Pathogenesis-related protein 1

Redox state

solyc07g039410.2.1

-2.20729

-1.85636

-1.61107

Nbs-lrr, resistance protein

solyc05g046030.2.1

-1.44323

-1.95476

-1.75115

Peroxidase

solyc01g006290.2.1

-4.44176

-2.66733

1.965054

Peroxidase

solyc01g006310.2.1

-2.19935

-1.68906

-1.71087

Peroxidase

solyc05g006740.2.1

-1.39462

-1.67555

-1.25058

Glutathione S-transferase

Miscelaneous

CytochromeP450

solyc07g052370.2.1

1.592891

1.144126

2.253552

Cytochrome P450

Transcription factor

C2c2(Zn) Co-like, Constans-like zinc finger family

solyc07g066510.2.1

-3.16422

-2.54704

2.541796

Zinc finger protein CONSTANS-LIKE 2

MYB domain transcription factor family

solyc06g005310.2.1

-1.3004

1.639491

1.189045

MYB transcription factor

 

solyc10g008700.1.1

-1.65232

2.339096

1.861414

MYB transcription factor

bZIP transcription factor family

solyc02g072570.1.1

-1.32419

-1.23206

-2.44191

Transcription factor bZIP98

Aux/IAA family

solyc08g021820.2.1

-10.0373

-2.64797

-4.15734

Auxin responsive protein

Putative transcription regulator

solyc01g081320.2.1

-1.85679

1.327023

1.545638

Pentatricopeptide repeat-containing protein

Protein metabolism

Targeting

solyc07g017520.2.1

-1.36494

1.651521

1.06459

Conserved oligomeric Golgi complex subunit 3

Posttranslational regulator

solyc04g15120.2.1

-1.7365

-1.3454

-1.44333

U-box domain containing protein expressed

 

solyc09g083410.2.1

1.002774

1.290076

1.408902

Amidase hydantoinase/carbamoylase family protein expressed

Degradation

solyc07g054370.2.1

-1.74661

2.633149

1.463537

F-box/LRR-repeat protein At3g59200

Signalling

Receptor kinases

solyc12g005620.1.1

1.813059

1.988114

1.028337

LRR receptor-like serine/threonine-protein kinase,RLP

 

solyc06g069740.1.

1.354104

1.251148

-2.06553

Calmodulin-like protein

Calcium

solyc03g083320.2.1

-1.11983

-1.18853

1.489756

Calcineurin B-like calcium binding protein

 

solyc01g097420.1.1

1.390368

1.531115

-1.73009

Calcuim ATPase

G-proteins

solyc03g078570.2.1

-1.35177

1.730895

1.078512

Ras-related protein Rab-6A

Transport

Protease inhibitor/seed storage/lipid transfer protein (LTP) family protein

solyc06g054070.2.1

-1.12655

-1.38876

-1.27683

Non-specific lipid-transfer protein

Sugars

solyc03g113210.2.1

-2.97781

-10.8452

1.643367

Porin/voltage-dependent anion-selective channel protein

Not assigned

Unknown

solyco1g104720.2.1

-3.27322

-3.93722

-2.36617

Unknown Protein

solyc07g009020.1.1

-2.17045

-4.1934

-1.14893

Unknown Protein

solyc08g078920.1.1

-1.1221

-1.43749

-1.25381

Proline-rich Protein

solyc12g049140.1.1

-2.16278

-3.50997

-2.2489

Extensin-like protein Ext1

solyc06g051500.2.1

-1.31051

3.08695

2.375988

Unknown Protein

solyc07g008980.2.1

-3.19664

-3.89496

-1.52861

Unknown Protein

solyc07g009030.2.1

-2.28689

-3.72919

-1.38264

Unknown Protein

solyc07g032170.2.1

-1.37989

2.61237

1.682212

Abhydrolase domain- containing protein 5

 

solyc04g015700.1.1

-1.09406

-2.77071

-1.14691

Unknown Protein

solyc05g009580.2.1

-1.41924

-1.0847

-1.80119

Aluminum-activated malate transporter-like

solyc12g014120.1.1

-1.51214

1.122747

1.442261

Unknown Protein

solyc09g097770.2.1

1.242743

1.587252

1.011286

Cell wall protein

solyc03g078580.2.1

-1.2353

1.865868

1.701912

Unknown Protein

solyc06g005210.1.1

2.124099

1.102057

1.169745

Cytochrome P450 like_TBP

solyc01g097690.2.1

-1.95437

-3.72554

-1.10791

Extensin-like protien Dif54

Gene ID numbers along with log2 values at each time point before and after inoculation are indicated. All genes were considered to be differentially expressed with a threshold q-value < 0.05.

Gene ID number along with log2 values at each time point before and after inoculation are indicated. All genes were considered DEGs with a cutoff q-value < 0.05.

Principal component analysis and distribution of differentially expressed genes

The Pearson correlation coefficient was used to determine the significance of the correlation between mRNA datasets of all eight samples using R (version 3.0.0) (http://www.r-project.org) in the FactoMineR package [30]. As shown by the principal component analysis (PCA), root profiles of noninoculated and 2 DAI samples clustered with respect to temporal dynamics associated with nematode infection, whereas the effect of mj-far-1 overexpression was less important at these stages. The resulting dendrogram revealed small differences in the expression levels of DEGs between noninoculated OE and Kan roots as well as between 2 DAI OE and Kan roots (Figure 3A). At 5 and 15 DAI, i.e., once nematode infection had progressed, root samples clustered predominantly in accordance with mj-far-1 overexpression, revealing broad, global differences in the expression levels of DEGs between OE and Kan root lines (Figure 3A). These results indicate that mj-far-1 is more important in defining a common transcriptome at later time points (Figure 3A). In this analysis, the most variability in the data was accounted for by dimension 1 (34.76%), while dimension 2 accounted for 21.86% of the variability in the data. Analyzing the distribution of DEGs and measuring the transcriptional changes detected in the OE vs. Kan root lines demonstrated that most of the changes between the lines occurred at 5 DAI when 1959 genes were differentially expressed (Figure 3B).
Figure 3
Figure 3

Distribution of differentially expressed genes. (A) Three-dimensional representation according to principle component analysis (PCA) of the differential gene expression data of eight treatments used in the RNA-Seq analysis (as implemented in JMP Genomics 5.1). Kan roots are root samples of vector 11.5 carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan control roots) and OE roots are mj-far-1.1 lines overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE roots). In this analysis, samples with similar expression profiles lie closer to each other than those with dissimilar profiles. Axes 1 and 2 show robust class separation into four major groups: Kan1 and OE1; Kan2 and OE2; Kan3 and Kan4; and OE3 and OE4. At the early time points (noninoculated and 2 DAI) the infection itself is responsible for most of the transcriptional variance. However, at 5 and 15 DAI, mj-far-1 is the variable responsible for most of the transcriptional variance among treatments with infection playing a lesser role. (B) Distribution of up- and downregulated differentially expressed genes and their fold change over all comparisons made between OE and Kan root lines.

Functional categorization of differentially expressed genes

To obtain an overview of the processes that are altered during the early and late stages of the plant’s response to nematode infection as a consequence of mj-far-1 overexpression, DEGs were classified using MapMan 2.0.0 [31] (Figure 4). Of the 3970 probe sets, 1144 corresponded to unassigned proteins, i.e., those with no known homolog in Arabidopsis. All other probe sets were grouped into functional categories, among them transcripts associated with secondary metabolism (104 probe sets), lipid metabolism (79 probe sets), cell wall (136 probe sets), transport (232 probe sets), hormone (155 probe sets), stress (180 probe sets), development (133 probe sets), and signaling (245 probe sets) (Figure 4). Probe sets that did not fit into any of these categories or fell into multiple categories were grouped as ‘miscellaneous’ (420 probe sets, Figure 4). In this study, we specifically focused on groups that were associated with stress and defense, fatty acids, phenylpropanoids (secondary metabolism), and cell walls. These groups of DEGs were further studied in relation to the increased susceptibility observed in roots overexpressing mj-far-1.
Figure 4
Figure 4

Functional classification of differentially expressed genes in OE root line vs. Kan root line ( q -value < 0.05) among all treatments as illustrated by MapMan categories.

Hormone metabolism- and fatty acid metabolism-related transcripts associated with mj-far-1 overexpression

Analysis of the ‘hormone metabolism’ category across all time points revealed differential expression of genes related to ET, auxin, methyl jasmonate and SA pathways in OE compared with Kan roots (as shown for 2 DAI in Additional file file 1: Table A1). A detailed analysis demonstrated a remarkable decrease in the expression of ET-related transcripts at 2 DAI in OE compared with Kan roots (Additional file 1: Table A1). These included transcripts encoding 2-oxoglutarate-dependent dioxygenase (Solyc09g089710.2.1), gibberellin 2-beta-dioxygenase (Solyc02g080120.1.1), and gibberellin 20-oxidase 4 (solyc01g093980.2.1), as well as aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid synthase; expression of these transcripts decreased by 1072.16-, 13.03-, 693.7- and 1072.17-fold in OE vs. Kan roots at 2 DAI. Similarly, downregulation of auxin-related genes, such as the gene encoding the PIN6 auxin:hydrogen symporter/transporter (Solyc06g059730.1.1) by 2.83-fold and auxin-responsive family protein (Solyc12g017880.1.1) by 5.26-fold, was observed, together with additional auxin-related transcripts that demonstrated strong downregulation in expression at 2 DAI (Additional file 1: Table A1). With regard to SA-related transcripts, the 6.34-fold increase in expression of salicylic acid carboxyl methyltransferase (Solyc09g091550.2.1) in OE compared with Kan roots at 2 DAI might contribute to the observed root susceptibility [32] (Additional file 1: Table A1).

Given that FAR is implicated in fatty acid metabolism, we next focused on fatty acid-related signaling in OE vs. Kan roots before and throughout the time course of inoculation. Transcript analysis by MapMan showed that the gene encoding the repressor jasmonate ZIM-domain protein 1 (JAZ1) (Solyc12g009220.1.1) was downregulated in noninoculated OE roots. JAZ1 is a nucleus-localized protein belonging to the larger family of TIFY proteins [32] that act as repressors of JA signaling [33,34]. (Similarly, upregulation of the gene encoding allene oxide synthase (AOS) (Solyc01g109150.2.1) was observed in noninoculated OE roots; this protein might induce the JA pathway before inoculation, providing an advantage for RKN infection. At 2 DAI downregulation of a 9-LOX member, the LOXB transcript (Solyc01g099180.2.1; similar to Arabidopsis LOX1), by 360-fold and AOS (Solyc04g079730.1.1; similar to Arabidopsis AOS) by 4.43-fold was observed, indicating that changes in lipid metabolism are an early response to nematode inoculation. At 5 DAI additional downregulation of 9-LOX (Solyc09g075870.1.1; similar to Arabidopsis LOX5) in OE roots compared with Kan roots was observed; although these mentioned isoforms are not known to be involved in JA biosynthesis, their product might be active in local and systemic defense mechanisms against pathogens [35,36] (Table 4). At 15 DAI significant upregulation of 9-LOX (Solyc08g014000.2.1; highly similar to Arabidopsis LOX1) and AOS (Solyc10g0079601.1) transcripts was observed in inoculated OE roots compared with the noninoculated control (Table 4). Differential expression of JA- and fatty acid-related transcripts solely as a consequence of nematode infection was studied by analyzing the Kan control roots. Inoculated Kan roots at 5 and 15 DAI showed downregulation of the 9-LOX gene family as LOXB (Solyc01g099200.2.1 and Solyc01g099180.2.1; highly similar to Arabidopsis LOX1), and of the 13-LOX family (Solyc05g014790.2.1; similar to Arabidopsis LOX6) and as LOXD (Solyc03g122340.2.1; highly similar to Arabidopsis LOX3) (Table 4). Similarly, the genes encoding AOS (Solyc11g069800.1.1 and Solyc04g079730.1.1) and 12-oxophytodienoate reductase 3 (Solyc07g007870.2.1) were downregulated. Upregulation of genes encoding hydroperoxide lyase (HPL) (Solyc07g049690.2.1; similar to Arabidopsis HPL1), 9-LOX transcripts similar to Arabidopsis LOX5 (Solyc09g075870.1.1 and Solyc09g075860.2.1), and LOX1 (Solyc08g014000.2.1 and Solyc01g099210.2.1), AOS (Solyc01g109150.2.1) and OPR2 (12-oxophytodienoate reductase 2) (Solyc01g103390.2.1) was observed. Similar to noninoculated OE samples, in Kan control roots at 5 and 15 DAI transcripts similar to those of the negative regulators of JA signaling JAZ1 (Solyc12g009220.1.1, Solyc07g042170.2.1, Solyc12g049400.1.1) and JAZ2 (Solyc03g122190.2.1) were downregulated as infection proceeded.
Table 4

Dynamics of the gene-expression profile related to the fatty acid pathway

Number

Function (ITAG)

Tomato (NCBI)

Arabidopsis thaliana (TAIR)

KAN1/ KAN3

KAN1/ KAN4

OE1/ KAN1

OE2/ KAN2

OE3/ KAN3

OE4/ KAN4

solyc05g014790.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004239145.1 lipoxygenase 6

AT4G15440 - HPL1 (HYDROPEROXIDE LYASE 1)

1.20

1.03

-

-

-

-

solyc09g075870.1.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004247319.1 lipoxygenase 5

AT3G22400 - LOX5 (LIPOXYGENASE 5)

-1.82

-2.15

-

-

-2.06

-

solyc08g014000.2.1

Lipoxygenase

NM_001247927 lipoxygenase (LOX1.1)

AT1G55020 - LOX1 (LIPOXYGENASE 1)

-1.32

-

-

-

-

5.48

solyc01g099210.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004230159.1 lipoxygenase 5

AT1G55020 - LOX1 (LIPOXYGENASE 1)

-1.75

-2.71

-

-

-

-

solyc01g099200.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004231226 lipoxygenase 5

AT1G55020 - LOX1

-

2.34

-

-

-

-

solyc01g099180.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004230158 lipoxygenase B

AT1G55020 - LOX1

-

4.20

-

-360.05

-

-

solyc09g075860.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XR_183132 lipoxygenase 5

AT3G22400 - LOX5

-

-1.66

-

-

-

-

solyc03g122340.2.1

Lipoxygenase

XM_004235501 lipoxygenase (loxD)

AT1G17420 - LOX3 (LIPOXYGENASE 3)

-

1.37

-

-

-

-

solyc07g049690.2.1

Cytochrome P450

NM_001247491.1 fatty acid hydroperoxide lyase (HPL)

AT4G15440 - HPL1

-1.18

-

-

-

-

-

solyc01g109150.2.1

Cytochrome P450

NM_001247573.1 cytochrome P450 CYP74C4

AT5G42650 - AOS (ALLENE OXIDE SYNTHASE)

-1.79

-3.06

2.98

-

-

-

solyc11g069800.1.1

Cytochrome P450

NM_001247904.1 allene oxide synthase (AOS)

AT5G42650 - AOS

-

1.02

-

-

-

-

solyc04g079730.1.1

Cytochrome P450

DQ174273.1 allene oxide syntase

AT5G42650 - AOS

-

1.40

-

-4.43

2.74

-

solyc10g007960.1.1

Allene oxide synthase

DQ174273.1 allene oxide syntase AJ278331

AT5G42650 - AOS

-

-

-

-

-

7.29

solyc01g103390.2.1

Flavin oxidoreductase/NADH oxidase

12-oxophytodienoate reductase 2 (OPR2)

AT1G76690 - OPR2 (12-OXOPHYTODIENOATE REDUCTASE 2)

-1.04

-1.72

-

-

-

-

solyc11g032130.1.1

NADPH dehydrogenase 3

XM_004250605.1 12-oxophytodienoate reductase 1-like

AT1G76690 - OPR2

-

-

-

-

2.59

-

solyc07g007870.2.1

NADH flavin oxidoreductase/12-oxophytodienoate reductase

NM_001246944 12-oxophytodienoate reductase 3 (opr3)

AT2G06050 - OPR3 (OPDA-REDUCTASE 3)

-

1.06

-

-

-

-

solyc03g122190.2.1

Jasmonate ZIM domain 2

NM_001247294.1 salt responsive protein 1 (SRG1)

AT1G74950 - JAZ2, TIFY10B (JASMONATE-ZIM-DOMAIN 2)

1.23

2.07

-

-

-

-

solyc12g009220.1.1

Jasmonate ZIM-domain protein 1

NM_001247954 jasmonate ZIM-domain protein 1

AT1G19180 - JAZ1 (JASMONATE-ZIM-DOMAIN PROTEIN 1)

1.97

1.92

-2.39

-

2.42

-

solyc12g049400.1.1

Protein TIFY 3B

XM_004252359 TIFY 10A-like

AT1G19180 - JAZ1

2.63

2.66

-

-

-

-

solyc07g042170.2.1

Jasmonate ZIM-domain protein 3

XM_004243648.1 TIFY 10A-like

AT1G19180 - JAZ1

-

1.33

-

-

-

-

Given that the LOXD isoform is involved in JA biosynthesis, we next studied the dynamic expression of LOXD by means of a LOXD promoter–GUS construct. For these experiments, primers corresponding to the 5′ upstream sequences of LOXD (Solyc03g122340.2.1; similar to Arabidopsis LOX3) were designed with reference to the recently released genome (ITAG Release 2 [2010-11-28] official annotations on the SL2.31 genome built by ITAG). Promoter fragments were amplified by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) using tomato line 870 genomic DNA as a template, cloned upstream of the GUS reporter gene in the vector pUC19_Y [37], and subsequently cloned in the binary vector pCAMBIA2300 [38]. Transgenic hairy roots were generated in the background of tomato line 870 using the LOXD promoter–GUS construct transformed into Agrobacterium rhizogenes. Five positive transgenic hairy roots events were then infected with the avirulent M. javanica population. For the LOXD promoter–GUS line (pLOXD–GUS), LOXD expression was conspicuous, but restricted to the vascular cylinder, in noninoculated roots (Figure 5A,C,E). Following infection, weak signal corresponding to LOXD expression was observed within the vascular tissue at 2 and 5 DAI (Figure 5B,D), which corresponded well with the transcriptome results (Table 4). At 15 DAI, by which time galls had developed, extremely intense signal was detected within the gall, restricted to the vascular tissue associated with GCs (Figure 5F). A similar phenotype was observed for all pLOXD–GUS transformed root events.
Figure 5
Figure 5

LOXD promoter (pLOXD)–GUS expression in transgenic tomato hairy root line infected with M. javanica second-stage juveniles (J2s). Noninfected control roots harboring the pLOXD–GUS fusion construct (A, C, E) show GUS staining of the root tip and vascular cylinder. Infected roots harboring pLOXD–GUS (B, D) show a decrease in GUS signal at 2 and 5 DAI. However, at 15 DAI (E), GUS signal is observed in the center of the developing gall in the giant cell area induced by the invading nematodes. (A–E) Light micrographs as viewed under a light microscope. (F) Bright-field image of galls photographed using a stereomicroscope. Bars: A–E = 100 μm, F = 1000 μm. Differential expression of LOXD in OE roots compared with Kan roots obtained in the RNA-Seq data is shown at the bottom of the table.

Differential expression of cell wall biosynthesis-, modification-, and remodeling-related genes associated with mj-far-1 overexpression

A distinct difference in the expression of genes showing strong or moderate association with cell wall-related activities was detected in OE vs. Kan roots. This pattern was demonstrated by the high representation of genes belonging to the different cell wall subcategories, as illustrated in Figure 6, whereby transcripts belonging to certain subcategories are overrepresented among the DEGs at a specific time point compared with their frequency in the tomato genome. Among these subcategories, a high representation of cell wall modification- and remodeling-related genes (e.g., those encoding pectin esterases) and expansin-encoding transcripts was observed (Figure 7, Additional file 1: Table A1 and Additional file 2: Table A2). The group of genes associated with cell wall-synthesis activity, such as the gene encoding cellulose synthase (Figure 7, Additional file 1: Table A1 and Additional file 2: Table A2), and cell wall degradation-related genes, such as genes encoding pectate lyases and polygalacturonases, were also overrepresented (Figure 7, Additional file 1: Table A1 and Additional file 2: Table A2). As noted already, at the early time points most genes belonging to these subcategories showed downregulation of the corresponding transcripts in OE roots compared with Kan roots. However, several transcripts belonging to the different subcategories showed remarkable upregulation, in particular at later time points (Figure 7).
Figure 6
Figure 6

Frequency distribution of reads putatively associated with cell wall processes identified among differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from the root transcriptomes of all noninfected and infected samples. All Kan roots are root samples of vector 11.5 carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan1, Kan2, Kan3, and Kan4 refer to Kan control roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively) and OE roots are mj-far-1.1 lines overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE1, OE2, OE3, and OE4 refer to OE roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively). Each category of cell wall-related genes is indicated on the x-axis and the percentage of genes in each category relative to the ITAG2.3 reference tomato genome and the DEGs is indicated on the y-axis.

Figure 7
Figure 7

Regulation of cell wall protein related transcripts. Fold change in expression of (A) pectin esterase-related genes, (B) expansin-related genes, (C) cellulose synthesis-related genes, (D) pectate lyase and polygalacturonase-related genes in OE vs. Kan root lines that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI.

To further validate the spatial and temporal expression patterns of cell wall-related genes, we used the gene encoding CWP (Solyc09g097770.2.1) in the aforementioned promoter–GUS construct assay. In noninoculated roots of the CWP promoter–GUS hairy root line (pCWP–GUS), no CWP was detected at any of the tested time points (Figure 8A,C,E). Interestingly, after inoculation, the lateral roots adjacent to the galls showed strong signal, which indicated induction of CWP by nematode infection (Figure 8F). A similar phenotype was observed for all pCWP–GUS transformed root events.
Figure 8
Figure 8

Cell wall protein (CWP) promoter (pCWP)–GUS expression in transgenic tomato hairy root line infected with M. javanica second-stage juveniles (J2s). Noninfected control (A, C) and infected (B, D) roots harboring the pCWP–GUS fusion construct show no GUS staining of the root or lateral root at 2 and 5 DAI. At 15 DAI, no signal is observed in noninfected roots (A, C, E). Although infected roots at 2 and 5 DAI (B, D) showed no signal, GUS signal is observed in lateral roots associated with galls induced by the invading nematodes at 15 DAI (F). (A–E) Light micrographs as viewed under a light microscope. (F) Bright-field image of galls photographed using a stereomicroscope. Bars: A–E = 100 μm, F = 1000 μm. Differential expression of CWP in OE roots compared with Kan roots obtained in the RNA-Seq data is shown at the bottom of the table.

Transcriptome changes in the phenylpropanoid and phenylalanine pathways associated with mj-far-1 overexpression

All 3970 DEGs were annotated using the Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) database [39] for pathway-enrichment analysis relative to the available whole transcriptome annotation for tomato (ITAG2.3), using the hypergeometric test. Enrichment of the different pathways at each time point is summarized in Figure 9. Pathway-enrichment analysis revealed the predominance of both phenylalanine and phenylpropanoid pathways in roots overexpressing mj-far-1 compared with Kan roots at all tested time points (Figure 9). This pattern was demonstrated by a high representation of genes belonging to the secondary metabolism subcategories (Figure 10), whereby transcripts belonging to certain subcategories were overrepresented in the DEGs at specific time points compared with their frequency in the tomato genome.
Figure 9
Figure 9

Enriched KEGG pathway at different time points. All 3970 differentially expressed genes were assigned to a pathway according to the KEGG database. All Kan roots are root samples of vector 11.5 carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan1, Kan2, Kan3, and Kan4 refer to Kan control roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively) and OE roots are mj-far-1.1 lines overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE1, OE2, OE3, and OE4 refer to OE roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively). KEGG pathway enrichment at each time point was calculated using the hypergeometric test. The P-values are presented on the heat map: the color gradient from dark blue to red represents strongly and significantly enriched pathways to nonsignificantly enriched pathways, respectively.

Figure 10
Figure 10

Frequency distribution of reads putatively associated with phenylpropanoid processes identified among differentially expressed genes (DEGs) from root transcriptomes of all noninfected and infected samples. All Kan roots are root samples of vector 11.5 carrying the kanamycin-resistance gene (Kan1, Kan2, Kan3, and Kan4 refer to Kan control roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively) and OE roots are mj-far-1.1 lines overexpressing mj-far-1 (OE1, OE2, OE3, and OE4 refer to OE roots that were noninoculated and at 2, 5, and 15 DAI, respectively). Each category of secondary metabolite-related genes is indicated on the x-axis and the percentage of genes from each category relative to the ITAG2.3 reference tomato genome and to the DEGs is indicated on the y-axis.

The phenylpropanoid pathway leads to the synthesis of coumarins, flavonoids, phytoalexins, lignins, and lignans, all of which can contribute to plant defense. In roots overexpressing mj-far-1, decreased levels of a transcript similar to phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) 2 (Solyc03g042560.1.1) and a transcript similar to 4-coumarate-CoA ligase (4CL3) (Solyc03g097030.2.1) were observed before nematode inoculation. The latter protein has a pivotal role in the biosynthesis of plant secondary compounds at the divergence point from general phenylpropanoid metabolism to several major branch pathways [40]. At 15 DAI, upregulation of two transcripts similar to PAL1 (Solyc00g282510.1.1 and Solyc10g011930.1.1) and a transcript similar to PAL4 (Solyc03g036480.1.1) by 3.3-, 4.18- and 2.82-fold, respectively, was observed. Transcripts similar to cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase 9 (CAD9) (Solyc08g014360.1.1 and Solyc02g069250.2.1), a key enzyme in lignin biosynthesis [41], were strongly upregulated (553.4- and 2.19-fold, respectively) in roots overexpressing mj-far-1 at 2 DAI. Similarly, expression of the gene encoding CHS (Solyc05g053550.2.1), a key enzyme in flavonoids biosynthesis, was differentially regulated in all inoculated OE vs. Kan roots (Table 3), showing increased transcript levels at 2 and 5 DAI followed by a decreased transcript level at 15 DAI.

Quantitative reverse-transcription (qRT)-PCR validation of RNA-Seq data

To confirm the expression profiles obtained from the RNA-Seq data, qRT-PCR analysis was carried out for 22 genes selected from among the 61 and 52 common DEGs in OE roots compared with Kan roots for overall noninoculated and inoculated samples, and for inoculated-only samples, respectively (Tables 2 and 3). Quantitative RT-PCR was performed using RNA isolated from infected and noninfected root samples of both root lines from the same batch used for preparation of the whole root transcriptome (Additional file 3: Table A3). The genes were selected to represent both up- and downregulated genes with log2 changes ranging from 3.11-fold upregulation to 12.08-fold downregulation in the transcriptome analysis. Of the 22 genes tested, 19 (86.3%) showed differential expression in the direction observed in the transcriptome profiling (Additional file 3: Table A3). For example, we confirmed the constant downregulation of the genes encoding long-chain fatty acid-CoA ligase (Solyc08g008310.2.1) and indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase (Solyc02g092820.2.1), together with constant upregulation of the genes encoding nodulin family protein (Solyc05g055540.1.1) and chitinase (Solyc07g009510.1.1). Only two probe sets that were shown to be downregulated in the RNA-Seq analysis, namely esterase/lipase/thioesterase (Solyc05g018770.1.1) and auxin-responsive protein (Solyc08g021820.2.1), were slightly upregulated in the qRT-PCR analysis at 5 and 15 DAI. Similarly, the gene encoding the fatty acid elongase 3-ketoacyl-CoA synthase (Solyc03g005320.2.1), which was shown to be upregulated in the RNA-Seq analysis, was downregulated in the qRT-PCR analysis at 5 and 15 DAI (Additional file 3: Table A3). Thus, overall, the qRT-PCR and RNA-Seq results were in agreement.

Discussion

Following deposition of effectors by the nematode through the stylet [5-9] or other organs in contact with the external environment, such as the amphids or cuticle [4,12,13], the question of how these proteins ultimately perform their function in the host cells remains to be answered. This is a complex aspect of plant–nematode interactions that are being dissected by several research groups [42]. A range of functions are attributed to nematode effectors, apart from reprogramming cell metabolism for the generation and maintenance of the nematodes’ feeding sites. A relatively large subset of effectors deals with the suppression of defense responses triggered by parasitism [42,43]. Data to date indicate that, as with other pathogens, active suppression of host defense responses is a critical component of successful parasitism by nematodes [42].

The involvement of nematode effectors in promoting host susceptibility to nematode infection has been reported for the cyst nematode Heterodera effectors CBP, 10A06, 4FO1, and 30CO2, and for the RKN Meloidogyne incognita effector CRT, whose overexpression in Arabidopsis increases susceptibility to nematodes [27,28,42-45]. Similarly, studies of the FAR protein from M. javanica (Mj-FAR-1) have shown that tomato hairy roots overexpressing mj-far-1 are remarkably more susceptible to RKNs [26]. The observed increase in host susceptibility conferred by successful pathogens could be the result of their overcoming pattern-triggered immunity, via suppression of the pattern-triggered immunity response by secreted effectors, leading to effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS) [42]. Even though the function of nematode infection in the manipulation of plant defense has been extensively studied, it is clear that nematodes target different levels of the plant’s immune system.

In this study, we aimed to elucidate the contribution of the protein Mj-FAR-1, which is secreted to suppress plant defense responses and to promote ETS, by exploring the broad transcriptional events underlying the increased susceptibility observed in roots overexpressing mj-far-1 relative to control roots. Using the RNA-Seq approach, we observed that mj-far-1 overexpression accounts for the differential expression of 3970 transcripts before and after inoculation. Of these transcripts, 2069 were upregulated and 2205 were downregulated in the OE vs. Kan roots for all inoculated and noninoculated samples. This finding is in agreement with previous results in which nematode infection induced not only upregulation of the transcription of specific enzymes, but also downregulation of transcriptional, translational, and catalytic events [14]. Collectively, these results suggest that the nematode might manipulate multiple pathways to suppress the host defense response. Pearson correlation tests indicated that samples of noninoculated roots and roots in the first phase of parasitism, i.e., prior to feeding (2 DAI) when the nematode is initiating attempts to establish itself in the host, clustered predominantly according to the infection step. However, at 5 and 15 DAI, during feeding-site formation and execution of the compatibility response, mj-far-1 overexpression had a greater impact on defining the root transcriptome of OE and Kan lines (Figure 3A). These results support our transcriptomic data, as global changes occurring in response to nematode infection are predicted to be similar in both lines, but the number and response level of modulated genes should provide a global overview of the changes that are attributable to Mj-FAR-1.

Regulation of hormone signaling-related genes by mj-far-1

Examination of genes encoding host biochemical pathways that have been implicated in the response to RKNs identified several hormone pathways that might be subject to mj-far-1 manipulation. The observed downregulation of JAZ1 together with upregulation of AOS in noninoculated roots expressing mj-far-1 might induce the JA pathway and support nematode invasion and establishment in the first stages of infection. Furthermore, the observed upregulation of Ethylene Response Factor 1 might indicate that JA levels are increased because this gene is known to be activated by both JA and ET [46,47]. Coincident with the suggested upregulation of the JA pathway in noninoculated OE roots, a reduction in PAL levels was indicated. These observations might support an antagonistic interaction between SA and JA in OE roots [48-50]. Moreover, upregulation of salicylic acid carboxyl methyltransferase (solyc09g091550.2.1) at 2 DAI might indicate a decrease in SA accumulation. This suggestion is supported by previous findings in which overexpression of salicylic acid carboxyl methyltransferase reduces SA-mediated pathogen resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana [51]. Evidence for the possible role of JA in promoting nematode development has been reported by Bhattarai et al. [52], who analyzed tomato mutants altered in JA signaling and concluded that an intact JA-signaling pathway is required for tomato susceptibility to RKNs. Similarly, in maize, Mu-insertional lox3-4 mutants displayed increased attractiveness to RKNs, and an increased number of juveniles and eggs were accompanied by elevated levels of JA [53]. More recently, in Arabidopsis, the 13-LOX member, lox4-1 mutant, characterized by increased levels of JA, demonstrated increased susceptibility to RKNs [54]. Overall, these results support our findings of increased JA signal promoting root susceptibility to RKNs. Following inoculation, several transcripts similar to Arabidopsis 9- and 13-LOX were differentially regulated in roots overexpressing mj-far-1 relative to control roots. LOXs are widely present in higher plants; they are important enzymes in the biosynthesis of oxylipins and in the plant response to wounding and pathogen attack [55]. Although only the 13-LOX pathway has been implicated in JA biosynthesis, other studies have suggested that there may be another as-yet-unknown pathway leading to LOX-mediated defense responses [56]. The observed fluctuation in the expression patterns of LOX-encoding transcripts suggests that nematode development requires the dynamic coordinated expression of LOX genes in the proper order for successful establishment in a susceptible root. The altered expression of LOX genes as a result of Mj-FAR-1 in OE compared with Kan roots is supported by results from an in vitro study indicating that LOX activity was inhibited by FAR-1 of the potato nematode G. pallida [11]. Thus, lipid-binding activity of Mj-FAR-1 toward free fatty acids which, among others, are LOX substrates might be involved in manipulating the plant defense response mediated by fatty acid signaling.

Downregulation of several auxin-related genes was observed in OE vs. Kan control roots, including those genes encoding indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase (GH3.8) and auxin-responsive GH3-like, which were downregulated in all OE root samples (Additional file 1: Table A1). These results are consistent with the hypothesis that, in general, global alterations of auxin balance accompany RKN infection [57]. Moreover, the finding that all transcripts similar to JAZ1 were downregulated at later time points after infection suggests that strict regulation of JAZ1 is an infection strategy that enables nematode development. Recent evidence indicating that jaz1 is not only a JA-responsive but also an auxin-responsive gene further illustrates the intimate molecular interplay between auxin and JA signaling [58]. Collectively, these results suggest that Mj-FAR-1 is involved in manipulating multiple pathways to coordinate feeding-site formation, protection from host defense responses, and maintenance of GCs.

Regulation of cell wall organization-related genes by mj-far-1

In the present study, strong representation of DEGs associated with cell wall-related activities was detected. The extensive modifications in cell wall architecture (i.e., thickening, ingrowth, disassembly, and dissolution) that occur in cyst nematode and RKN feeding cells are likely mediated by the activity of both cell wall-biosynthetic and cell wall-degrading enzymes. Interestingly, most of the cell wall biosynthesis-, organization-, and modification-related genes were downregulated (more than 3-fold) in OE vs. Kan roots, and particularly in noninoculated roots at 2 and 5 DAI. These data further confirm the hypothesis that cell wall biosynthesis, modification or fortification is essential to the plant’s response to nematode infection. Similar to other transcriptomic studies, RNA-Seq data indicated that the expression of many genes involved in cell wall extension and remodeling is altered following nematode inoculation [59-61]. For example, a group of genes involved in cellulose synthesis was downregulated at an early time point, whereas several transcripts were upregulated at 15 DAI in OE vs. Kan control roots (Figure 7C). Cellulose synthesis is expressed in the initial expansion phase of GC development. Concomitant hyperplasia of root cells surrounding the GCs to form the visible gall also likely requires synthesis of new (primary) cell wall [62-64]. It might be that upregulation of this group of genes at 5 and 15 DAI reflects the accelerated disease development observed on the OE root line. Similarly, there was impressive representation of expansin-encoding genes (Figure 7B). Expansins are encoded by a large multigene family. They are identified as wall-loosening factors and facilitators of cell expansion [64,65]. A previous study indicated that a decrease in tomato EXPA5 expression by means of RNAi-transgenic root generation reduces the nematode’s ability to complete its life cycle in transgenic roots [65]. Following GC formation, and possibly as a secondary response, division and expansion of cortical and pericycle cells around the GCs occur, causing the formation of galls. Similarly, specific transcripts among the group of genes encoding pectin esterases, pectate lyase and polygalacturonase were upregulated in OE vs. Kan roots at the later time points (Figure 7).

Cell expansion, cell elongation, cell wall biosynthesis, and cell wall dissolution are all physiological processes that have been observed indirectly within nematode-induced feeding cells [66,67]. The differential regulation of cell wall biosynthesis- and modification-related gene expression at the early time point might facilitate nematode establishment in root tissues.

Regulation of phenylpropanoid-related genes by mj-far-1

Notable differences in the expression of genes encoding enzymes in the phenylpropanoid pathway were observed in OE vs. Kan control roots at all time points (Figure 9). Many secondary metabolites derived from multiple branches of the phenylpropanoid pathway, including lignins, isoflavonoid-phytoalexins, other phenolic compounds, and SA, are instrumental in the plant’s ability to mount a successful defense against invading pathogens [68]. A remarkable decrease in the expression of genes encoding enzymes at the initiation of the phenylpropanoid pathway, e.g., genes encoding PAL and 4CL3, was observed in noninoculated OE vs. Kan control roots. PAL (EC 4.3.1.34) can be considered a control point for entry into the phenylpropanoid pathway [69], whereas 4CL3 has a pivotal role in the biosynthesis of plant secondary compounds at the divergence point from general phenylpropanoid metabolism to several major branch pathways [38]. At 5 and 15 DAI, four genes encoding different PAL isoforms increased in expression, thereby suggesting increased metabolic flow into the phenylpropanoid pathway. Increased PAL enzyme activity has been noted in resistant tomato roots infected with RKNs, whereas PAL activity is depressed in susceptible tomato roots [70]. Similarly, in potato, PAL activity is higher in resistant plants [71]. It may be hypothesized that the decrease in PAL expression before inoculation facilitates nematode infection, whereas the high level of PAL at 5 and 15 DAI reflects acceleration of the infection progress promoted in the OE root. Two transcripts encoding CAD9 showed increased expression at 2 DAI; CAD9 is a key enzyme in lignin biosynthesis as it catalyzes the final step in the synthesis of monolignols. Its expression may be the result of increased penetration and accelerated disease progression in the OE line (Solyc02g069250.2.1 and Solyc08g014360.1.1, with 2.19- and 553.4-fold increases in expression, respectively). An additional important gene is CHS, which was upregulated at 2 and 5 DAI and downregulated at 15 DAI. CHS is involved in glyceollin synthesis, which is known to inhibit oxygen uptake by Meloidogyne [72]. The decrease in CHS expression at 15 DAI might support nematode infection. Invasion of roots with RKNs and cyst nematodes induces the flavonoid pathway in infection structures [57,73], and flavonoids are hypothesized to act as regulators of auxin transport and accumulation during gall formation [57,58]. In flavonoid-deficient Medicago truncatula plants, gall formation still occurred, although galls were smaller and showed fewer cell divisions [74]. In flavonoid-deficient Arabidopsis and tobacco mutants, reproduction of several species of nematodes was not affected [73,75]. However, flavonoids did affect nematode behavior; for example, certain flavonoids acted as repellents for specific nematode species and inhibited their motility and hatching at millimolar concentrations [76]. Although synthesis of flavonoid or isoflavonoid phytoalexins, deposition of lignin or cell wall-bound phenolics, and synthesis of other defense chemicals via the phenylpropanoid pathway are often characteristic of both the localized hypersensitive response and systemic acquired resistance [77], we suggest that in OE roots, decreased abundance of transcripts associated with synthesis and regulation of defense chemicals derived from the phenylpropanoid pathway might facilitate nematode infection.

Conclusions

The present study provides evidence for the potential mediation by Mj-FAR-1 of a complex defense-related response, including differential regulation of cell wall-, hormone- and fatty acid-related genes, as well as changes in the phenylpropanoid pathway. Our results indicate that roots overexpressing mj-far-1 still mount a defense response against nematode infection; however, this rapid response might reflect the accelerated disease progress in OE roots upon nematode infection. While the direct effects of mj-far-1 might be related only to fatty acid metabolism, the indirect effect mediated by lipid signaling may drive other pathways that affect plant responses to nematodes. This study adds to our understanding of the role of mj-far-1 and may ultimately indicate novel pathways that are required for nematode establishment and parasitism.

Methods

Plant materials and growth conditions

Tomato ‘Avigail’ )870) was used as the background line for both transgenic root lines: mj-far-1 OE and the control Kan, as described previously [26]. Both root lines were subcultured on standard-strength Gamborg’s B5 salt medium (Duchefa, Haarlem, The Netherlands), supplemented with 2% (w/v) sucrose and solidified with 0.8% (w/v) Gelrite agar (Duchefa). Roots were subcultured on B5 medium, with one root section per petri dish (Miniplast, Ein Shemer, Israel), and incubated horizontally in a growth chamber at 26°C in the dark for 1 week to allow root branching before nematode inoculation.

Nematode culture and infection assays

Meloidogyne javanica was propagated on greenhouse-grown tomato ‘Avigail’ (870) plants. Nematode egg masses were extracted from roots with 0.05% (v/v) sodium hypochlorite followed by sucrose flotation [78]. For sterilization, eggs were placed on a cellulose–acetate filter membrane (Sartorius Stedim Biotech GmbH, Goettingen, Germany, pore size 5 μm) in a sterile Whatman® filter holder (Whatman International Ltd., Dassel, Germany). Eggs on the filter were exposed for 10 min to 0.01% (w/v) mercuric chloride (Sigma-Aldrich, St Louis, MO, USA), followed by 0.7% (v/v) streptomycin solution (Sigma-Aldrich), and three washing steps with 50 ml sterilized distilled water [79]. The sterilized eggs were collected from the membrane and placed on 25-μm-pore sieves in 0.01 M 2-morpholinoethanesulfonic acid buffer (Sigma-Aldrich) under aseptic dark conditions for 3 days, allowing J2s to hatch. Freshly hatched preparasitic J2s were collected in a 50 ml falcon tube. For nematode infection, 1-week-old transgenic tomato root lines, growing on standard-strength Gamborg’s B5 salt medium, were inoculated with 200 sterile freshly hatched M. javanica preparasitic J2s. Plates were left uncovered in a laminar flow hood until water had completely soaked into the medium [80]. The inoculated and noninoculated roots were incubated horizontally in the dark, and root samples were taken for either RNA extraction or GUS bioassay at the designated time points after inoculation.

cDNA library preparation and high-throughput sequencing

Total RNA was extracted using TRI reagent (Sigma-Aldrich) from Kan and OE tomato root lines at different time points postinoculation. Beads containing oligo (dT) were used to isolate poly(A) mRNA from 500 μg total RNA for each sample. Purified mRNA was then fragmented in fragmentation buffer. Using these short fragments as templates, random hexamer primers were used to synthesize the first-strand cDNA. The second-strand cDNA was synthesized using buffer, dNTPs, RNase H and DNA polymerase I. Short double-stranded cDNA fragments were purified with the QIAquick PCR Purification Kit (QIAGEN Inc., Valencia, CA) and eluted with elution buffer (EB) for end repair and the addition of an ‘A’ base. The short fragments were ligated to Illumina sequencing adaptors. DNA fragments of a selected size were gel-purified and amplified by PCR. The amplified library was sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq™ 2000 platform. The details of the experiment were as follows: expected library size, 200 bp; read length, 90 nucleotides; sequencing strategy, paired-end sequencing. The library size and read length are provided in the Additional file 1: Table A1.

Read alignment to the reference tomato genome

In total, 212,975,340 2 × 100 bp reads were sequenced. Read mapping to the ITAG Solanum lycopersicum protein reference version 2.3 (ITAG2.3; http://solgenomics.net) was performed with SoapAligner/SOAP2 [29]. An average of 20.1 million reads from each library paired-end sequencing were uniquely aligned to the reference sample, and overall made up ca. 75.6% of the total reads (Table 1) used in the bioinformatics analysis. Gene-expression level was normalized using the RPKM (reads per kilobase transcriptome per million mapped reads) method [81].

Differences in gene expression between two samples were calculated based on Poisson distribution for gene expression. FDR was calculated using the Benjamini and Yekutieli (2001) FDR method [82]. We used FDR ≤ 0.001 and the absolute value of log2 ratio ≥ 1 as the thresholds to judge the significance of the differences in gene expression. All sequences were uploaded to the NCBI SRA database under accession no. SRX504894.

Differences in gene expression were visualized using MapMan [31,83]. The MapMan mapping file was obtained from http://www.gomapman.org/; 27,212 of the 29,549 genes on the microarray were present in the mapping file. Enrichments of functional categories of the MapMan annotation in the significantly DEGs were tested for significance by applying Fisher’s test with Bonferroni correction for multiple tests using Mefisto Version 0.23beta (http://www.usadellab.org). Enrichment of Gene Ontology (GO) terms in significantly DEGs was evaluated using the agriGO GO analysis toolkit (http://bioinfo.cau.edu.cn/agriGO) [84] with Fisher’s test and Bonferroni multiple testing correction (P < 0.05). Pathway analysis was done using the KEGG database [38] and enrichment was calculated using the hypergeometric test followed by the FDR test. PCA analysis was performed using the FactoMineR package [29].

Real-time qPCR analysis

For qPCR experiments, contaminant genomic DNA was removed from the RNA with the Turbo DNA-free Kit from Ambion (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA). DNA-free RNA (1 μg) was converted into first-strand cDNA using the Verso™ cDNA Synthesis kit (ABgene, Epsom, UK), and reactions were performed using the ABsolute SYBR Green ROX mix (ABgene). Primers for qRT-PCR experiments were designed with Primer Express software (Applied Biosystems; see Additional file 4: Table A4). The real-time PCR contained 3.4 μl cDNA in a total volume of 10 μl, consisting of 1× SYBR-Green Amplification Kit (ABgene), 150 nM forward primer and 150 nM reverse primer, and was run in real-time PCR plasticware (Axygen, Union City, CA, USA). All PCR cycles began with 2 min at 50°C, then 10 min at 95°C, followed by 40 cycles of 10 s at 95°C and 1 min at 60°C. After the PCR, a melting curve was generated by gradually increasing the temperature to 95°C to test for amplicon specificity. For qPCR, a mixture of all cDNAs was used for all treatments, as a template for calibration curves designed for each pair of primers. Each reaction was performed in triplicate and the results represent the mean of two independent biological experiments. Three constitutively expressed genes, namely actin (ACT; GenBank accession no. U60482.1), β-tubulin (TUB; GenBank accession no. NM_001247878.1) and 18S (GenBank accession no. BH012957.1), were used as endogenous controls for gene expression analysis (Additional file 4: Table A4). Transcript levels were normalized for each sample with the geometric mean of the corresponding selected housekeeping genes. All of the housekeeping genes were confirmed to display minimal variation across the treatment and were the most stable housekeeping genes from a set of tested genes in a given cDNA sample. Values were expressed as the increase or decrease in level relative to a calibration sample. The following control reactions were included: PCR negative control without cDNA template to confirm the absence of nonspecific PCR products (NTC), and a second reaction containing mRNA that had not been subjected to reverse transcription (NRT control). To confirm the expression profiles obtained from the RNA-Seq expression data, RT-qPCR analysis was carried out for 22 genes selected on the basis of their biological significance: genes involved in fatty acid metabolism, such as long-chain fatty acid-CoA ligase and fatty acid elongase, cell wall-related transcripts such as chitinase, expansin-1 and CWP, and hormone-related transcripts such as auxin-responsive protein and indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase.

Plasmid construction and generation of transgenic tomato roots

All PCR amplifications used for plasmid construction were performed using the Dream Taq Green Master Mix (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA, USA) in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and using tomato genomic DNA as the template. To clone the different promoter sequences (pLOXD and pCWP), specific primers designed to amplify a 2000 bp fragment and to create the SacI and SmaI restriction sites at the 5′ and 3′ ends of the promoter, respectively, were used (Additional file 5: Table A5). The SmaI restriction site was placed before the ATG sequence of the respective genes to guarantee the correct reading frame when the promoter was fused to the β-glucuronidase (GUS) gene. The 2000 bp fragment was then cloned into the pUC19_Y vector [37] at the SacI and SmaI restriction sites. The 4010 bp cassette containing the specific gene promoter and the GUS reporter gene was then isolated by restriction digestion with SacI and SalI and subsequently cloned into the pCAMBIA2300 binary vector [38]. The identity, orientation, and junctions of the resulting pCAM-LOXD and pCAM-CWP constructs were confirmed by digestion patterns and sequencing. Five different events of transformed roots with pCAM-LOXD or pCAM-CWP were subjected to the GUS assay, with 10 specimens sampled for each root line. A supplementary plasmid pME-524, expressing GUS under the control of the 35S promoter, was used as a positive control. The pCAMBIA2300 empty-vector control and the construct plasmids were subsequently used for A. rhizogenes-mediated root transformation.

Agrobacterium-mediated root transformation and production of hairy root cultures

The binary vector pCAM-LOXD, pCAM-CWP and the empty-vector control pCAMBIA2300 were electrotransformed into A. rhizogenes ATCC 15834 [85]. Individual cotyledons were excised from 8–10-day-old tomato seedlings and immersed in an A. rhizogenes suspension (OD600 1.0) for 15 min. The excised cotyledons were blot-dried on sterile filter paper, then co-cultivated on standard-strength Gamborg’s B5 salt medium for 3 days. Explants were then washed with liquid B5 medium supplemented with the antibiotics kanamycin (50 μg ml−1) (Duchefa Biochemie) and Timentin (300 μg ml−1; ticarcillin disodium:potassium clavulanate, 15:1) (Duchefa Biochemie) and incubated at room temperature for 1 h with mild shaking. The explants were blot-dried on sterile filter paper and placed on B5 agar medium supplemented with the same antibiotics. Within 7 to 10 days of incubation at 25°C in the light, roots emerged on the surface of the cotyledons. Hairy roots were transferred to Gamborg’s B5 medium supplemented with 0.8% (w/v) Gelrite and kanamycin (50 μg ml−1).

Histochemical localization of GUS activity and microscopic analysis

One-week-old control and promoter-GUS tomato roots were inoculated as described above, and assayed histochemically for GUS activity at 2, 5 and 15 DAI. A set of noninfected plates served as the control group. For GUS assays, infected and noninfected transgenic root tissues were removed from the petri dishes at specific time points after inoculation and infiltrated with GUS-staining buffer containing 50 mM sodium phosphate (pH 7.0), 10 mM EDTA, 5 mM K4[Fe2(CN)6], 5 mM K3[Fe2(CN)6], 0.2% (v/v) Triton X-100 and 2 mM 5-bromo-4-chloro-3-indolyl ß-D-glucuronide (X-Gluc). GUS staining was performed for 12 h at 37°C. For observation and documentation, GUS-stained roots were mounted on microscope slides or in small wells, and photographed with either a Leica DMLB light microscope and a Nikon Eclipse 90i (Leica Microsystems GmbH, Wetzlar, Germany; Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan), or a stereomicroscope (Leica MZFLIII, Leica Microsystems GmbH) equipped with a Nikon DS-Fi1 camera.

Availability of supporting data

All the referred supporting data are included as additional files.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

We appreciate the financial support of a grant from the Israeli Chief Scientist’s Office, Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development (no. 020-0687-02).

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Department of Entomology, Nematology and Chemistry Units, Agricultural Research Organization (ARO), Volcani Center, P.O. Box 6, Bet Dagan, 50250, Israel
(2)
Department of Plant Pathology and Microbiology, Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot, 76100, Israel

References

  1. Bird DM. Signaling between nematodes and plants. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004;7(4):372–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Dubreuil G, Magliano M, Deleury E, Abad P, Rosso MN. Transcriptome analysis of root-knot nematode functions induced in the early stages of parasitism. New Phytol. 2007;176(2):426–36.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Gheysen G, Fenoll C. Gene expression in nematode feeding sites. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2002;40:191–219.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Jones JT, Reavy B, Smant G, Prior AE. Glutathione peroxidases of the potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis. Gene. 2004;324:47–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Baum TJ, Hussey RS, Davis EL. Root-knot and cyst nematode parasitism genes: the molecular basis of plant parasitism. Genet Eng (N Y). 2007;28:17–43.Google Scholar
  6. Davis EL, Hussey RS, Baum TJ, Bakker J, Schots A, Rosso MN, et al. Nematode parasitism genes. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2000;38:365–96.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Niebel A, De Almeida EJ, Tire C, Engler G, Van Montagu M, Gheysen G. Induction patterns of an extensin gene in tobacco upon nematode infection. Plant Cell. 1993;5(12):1697–710.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Sijmons PC. Plant-nematode interactions. Plant Mol Biol. 1993;23(5):917–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Vanholme B, De Meutter J, Tytgat T, Van Montagu M, Coomans A, Gheysen G. Secretions of plant-parasitic nematodes: a molecular update. Gene. 2004;332:13–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Jones D, Candido EP. The NED-8 conjugating system in Caenorhabditis elegans is required for embryogenesis and terminal differentiation of the hypodermis. Dev Biol. 2000;226(1):152–65.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Prior A, Jones JT, Blok VC, Beauchamp J, McDermott L, Cooper A, et al. A surface-associated retinol- and fatty acid-binding protein (Gp-FAR-1) from the potato cyst nematode Globodera pallida: lipid binding activities, structural analysis and expression pattern. Biochem J. 2001;356(Pt 2):387–94.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Robertson L, Robertson WM, Sobczak M, Helder J, Tetaud E, Ariyanayagam MR, et al. Cloning, expression and functional characterisation of a peroxiredoxin from the potato cyst nematode Globodera rostochiensis. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2000;111(1):41–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Spiegel Y, Kahane I, Cohen L, Sharon E. Meloidogyne javanica surface proteins: characterization and lability. Parasitology. 1997;115(Pt 5):513–9.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Jammes F, Lecomte P, de Almeida-Engler J, Bitton F, Martin-Magniette ML, Renou JP, et al. Genome-wide expression profiling of the host response to root-knot nematode infection in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2005;44(3):447–58.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Glazebrook J. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:205–27.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Kunkel BN, Brooks DM. Cross talk between signaling pathways in pathogen defense. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2002;5(4):325–31.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Basavaraju SV, Zhan B, Kennedy MW, Liu Y, Hawdon J, Hotez PJ. Ac-FAR-1, a 20 kDa fatty acid- and retinol-binding protein secreted by adult Ancylostoma caninum hookworms: gene transcription pattern, ligand binding properties and structural characterisation. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2003;126(1):63–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Bath JL, Robinson M, Kennedy MW, Agbasi C, Linz L, Maetzold E, et al. Identification of a secreted fatty acid and Retinol-Binding Protein (Hp-FAR-1) from Heligmosomoides polygyrus. J Nematol. 2009;41(3):228–33.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Fairfax KC, Vermeire JJ, Harrison LM, Bungiro RD, Grant W, Husain SZ, et al. Characterization of a fatty acid and retinol binding protein orthologue from the hookworm Ancylostoma ceylanicum. Int J Parasitol. 2009;39(14):1561–71.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Garofalo A, Kennedy MW, Bradley JE. The FAR proteins of parasitic nematodes: their possible involvement in the pathogenesis of infection and the use of Caenorhabditis elegans as a model system to evaluate their function. Med Microbiol Immunol. 2003;192(1):47–52.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Garofalo A, Klager SL, Rowlinson MC, Nirmalan N, Klion A, Allen JE, et al. The FAR proteins of filarial nematodes: secretion, glycosylation and lipid binding characteristics. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2002;122(2):161–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Garofalo A, Rowlinson MC, Amambua NA, Hughes JM, Kelly SM, Price NC, et al. The FAR protein family of the nematode Caenorhabditis elegans. Differential lipid binding properties, structural characteristics, and developmental regulation. J Biol Chem. 2003;278(10):8065–74.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Kennedy MW, Garside LH, Goodrick LE, McDermott L, Brass A, Price NC, et al. The Ov20 protein of the parasitic nematode Onchocerca volvulus. A structurally novel class of small helix-rich retinol-binding proteins. J Biol Chem. 1997;272(47):29442–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Jordanova R, Groves MR, Kostova E, Woltersdorf C, Liebau E, Tucker PA. Fatty acid- and retinoid-binding proteins have distinct binding pockets for the two types of cargo. J Biol Chem. 2009;284(51):35818–26.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Michalski ML, Monsey JD, Cistola DP, Weil GJ. An embryo-associated fatty acid-binding protein in the filarial nematode Brugia malayi. Mol Biochem Parasitol. 2002;124(1–2):1–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Iberkleid I, Vieira P, de Almeida EJ, Firester K, Spiegel Y, Horowitz SB. Fatty acid-and retinol-binding protein, Mj-FAR-1 induces tomato host susceptibility to root-knot nematodes. PLoS One. 2013;8(5):e64586.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. Hewezi T, Howe P, Maier TR, Hussey RS, Mitchum MG, Davis EL, et al. Cellulose binding protein from the parasitic nematode Heterodera schachtii interacts with Arabidopsis pectin methylesterase: cooperative cell wall modification during parasitism. Plant Cell. 2008;20(11):3080–93.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Patel N, Hamamouch N, Li C, Hewezi T, Hussey RS, Baum TJ, et al. A nematode effector protein similar to annexins in host plants. J Exp Bot. 2010;61(1):235–48.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Altschul SF, Gish W, Miller W, Myers EW, Lipman DJ. Basic local alignment search tool. J Mol Biol. 1990;215(3):403–10.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Le S, Josse J, Husson F. FactoMineR: An R package for multivariate analysis. JSS J Stat Softw. 2008;25(1):1–18.Google Scholar
  31. Usadel B, Nagel A, Thimm O, Redestig H, Blaesing OE, Palacios-Rojas N, et al. Extension of the visualization tool MapMan to allow statistical analysis of arrays, display of corresponding genes, and comparison with known responses. Plant Physiol. 2005;138(3):1195–204.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Vanholme B, Grunewald W, Bateman A, Kohchi T, Gheysen G. The tify family previously known as ZIM. Trends Plant Sci. 2007;12:239–44.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Thines B, Katsir L, Melotto M, Niu Y, Mandaokar A, Liu GH, et al. JAZ repressor proteins are targets of the SCFCO11 complex during jasmonate signalling. J Nature. 2007;448:661–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  34. Chini A, Fonseca S, Fernández G, Adie B, Chico JM, Lorenzo O, et al. The JAZ family of repressors is the missing link in jasmonate signalling. Nature. 2007;448:666–71.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Vicente J, Cascon T, Vicedo B, Garcia-Agustin P, Hamberg M, Castresana C. Role of 9-lipoxygenase and alpha-dioxygenase oxylipin pathways as modulators of local and systemic defense. Mol Plant. 2012;5(4):914–28.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Yan L, Zhai Q, Wei J, Li S, Wang B, Huang T, et al. Role of tomato lipoxygenase D in wound-induced jasmonate biosynthesis and plant immunity to insect herbivores. PLoS Genet. 2013;9(12):e1003964.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Vancanneyt G, Schmidt R, O’Connor-Sanchez A, Willmitzer L, Rocha-Sosa M. Construction of an intron-containing marker gene: splicing of the intron in transgenic plants and its use in monitoring early events in Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation. Mol Gen Genet. 1990;220(2):245–50.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Remy S, Thiry E, Coemans B, Windelinckx S, Swennen R, Sagi L. Improved T-DNA vector for tagging plant promoters via high-throughput luciferase screening. Biotechniques. 2005;38(5):763–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Kanehisa M, Goto S, Sato Y, Furumichi M, Tanabe M. KEGG for integration and interpretation of large-scale molecular data sets. Nucleic Acids Res. 2012;40(Database issue):D109–14.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Hamberger B, Hahlbrock K. The 4-coumarate: CoA ligase gene family in Arabidopsis thaliana comprises one rare, sinapate-activating and three commonly occurring isoenzymes. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A.2004;101(7):2209–14.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Barakat A, Bagniewska-Zadworna A, Choi A, Plakkat U, DiLoreto DS, Yellanki P, et al. The cinnamyl alcohol dehydrogenase gene family in Populus: phylogeny, organization, and expression. BMC Plant Biol. 2009;9:26.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Hewezi T, Baum TJ. Manipulation of plant cells by cyst and root-knot nematode effectors. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013;26(1):9–16.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Hamamouch N, Li C, Hewezi T, Baum TJ, Mitchum MG, Hussey RS, et al. The interaction of the novel 30C02 cyst nematode effector protein with a plant beta-1,3-endoglucanase may suppress host defence to promote parasitism. J Exp Bot. 2012;63(10):3683–95.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. Jaouannet M, Magliano M, Arguel MJ, Gourgues M, Evangelisti E, Abad P, et al. The root-knot nematode calreticulin Mi-CRT is a key effector in plant defense suppression. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2013;26(1):97–105.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Hewezi T, Howe PJ, Maier TR, Hussey RS, Mitchum MG, Davis EL, et al. Arabidopsis spermidine synthase is targeted by an effector protein of the cyst nematode Heterodera schachtii. Plant Physiol. 2010;152:968–84.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Lorenzo O, Chico JM, Sanchez-Serrano JJ, Solano R. JASMONATE-INSENSITIVE1 encodes a MYC transcription factor essential to discriminate between different jasmonate-regulated defense responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2004;16(7):1938–50.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Lorenzo O, Piqueras R, Sanchez-Serrano JJ, Solano R. ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTOR1 integrates signals from ethylene and jasmonate pathways in plant defense. Plant Cell. 2003;15(1):165–78.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Bostock RM. Signal crosstalk and induced resistance: straddling the line between cost and benefit. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:545–80.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Koornneef A, Leon-Reyes A, Ritsema T, Verhage A, Den Otter FC, Van Loon LC, et al. Kinetics of salicylate-mediated suppression of jasmonate signaling reveal a role for redox modulation. Plant Physiol. 2008;147(3):1358–68.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Pieterse CM, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SC. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28:489–521.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Koo YJ, Kim MA, Kim EH, Song JT, Jung C, Moon JK, et al. Overexpression of salicylic acid carboxyl methyltransferase reduces salicylic acid-mediated pathogen resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Mol Biol. 2007;64(1–2):1–15.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Bhattarai KK, Xie QG, Mantelin S, Bishnoi U, Girke T, Navarre DA, et al. Tomato susceptibility to root-knot nematodes requires an intact jasmonic acid signaling pathway. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2008;21(9):1205–14.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Gao X, Starr J, Gobel C, Engelberth J, Feussner I, Tumlinson J, et al. Maize 9-lipoxygenase ZmLOX3 controls development, root-specific expression of defense genes, and resistance to root-knot nematodes. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2008;21(1):98–109.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Ozalvo R, Cabrera J, Escobar C, Christensen SA, Borrego EJ, Kolomiets MV, et al. Two closely related members of Arabidopsis 13-lipoxygenases (13-LOXs), LOX3 and LOX4, reveal distinct functions in response to plant-parasitic nematode infection. Mol Plant Pathol. 2014;15:319–32.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Gobel C, Feussner I, Schmidt A, Scheel D, Sanchez-Serrano J, Hamberg M, et al. Oxylipin profiling reveals the preferential stimulation of the 9-lipoxygenase pathway in elicitor-treated potato cells. J Biol Chem. 2001;276(9):6267–73.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Reddy PS, Kumar TC, Reddy MN, Sarada C, Reddanna P. Differential formation of octadecadienoicacid and octadecatrienoic acid products in control and injured/infected potato tubers. Biochim Biophys Acta. 2000;1483:294–300.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Hutangura P, Mathesius U, Jones MGK, Rolfe BG. Auxin induction is a trigger for root gall formation caused by root-knot nematodes in white clover and is associated with the activation of the flavonoid pathway. Aust J Plant Physiol. 1999;26(3):221–31.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Grunewald W, Cannoot B, Friml J, Gheysen G. Parasitic nematodes modulate PIN-mediated auxin transport to facilitate infection. PLoS Pathog. 2009;5(1):e1000266.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Ibrahim HM, Hosseini P, Alkharouf NW, Hussein EH, Gamal El-Din Ael K, Aly MA, et al. Analysis of gene expression in soybean (Glycine max) roots in response to the root knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita using microarrays and KEGG pathways. BMC Genomics. 2011;12:220.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Ithal N, Recknor J, Nettleton D, Maier T, Baum TJ, Mitchum MG. Developmental transcript profiling of cyst nematode feeding cells in soybean roots. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2007;20(5):510–25.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Klink VP, Hosseini P, Matsye P, Alkharouf NW, Matthews BF. A gene expression analysis of syncytia laser microdissected from the roots of the Glycine max (soybean) genotype PI 548402 (Peking) undergoing a resistant reaction after infection by Heterodera glycines (soybean cyst nematode). Plant Mol Biol. 2009;71(6):525–67.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Arioli T, Peng L, Betzner AS, Burn J, Wittke W, Herth W, et al. Molecular analysis of cellulose biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. Science. 1998;279(5351):717–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Fagard M, Desnos T, Desprez T, Goubet F, Refregier G, Mouille G, et al. PROCUSTE1 encodes a cellulose synthase required for normal cell elongation specifically in roots and dark-grown hypocotyls of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2000;12(12):2409–24.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. McQueen-Mason S, Durachko DM, Cosgrove DJ. Two endogenous proteins that induce cell wall extension in plants. Plant Cell. 1992;4(11):1425–33.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Gal TZ, Aussenberg ER, Burdman S, Kapulnik Y, Koltai H. Expression of a plant expansin is involved in the establishment of root knot nematode parasitism in tomato. Planta. 2006;224(1):155–62.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Endo BY. Histology and ultrastructural modification induced by cyst nematodes. In: Taylor LaCE, editor. Cyst nematodes. New York: Plenum Press; 1986. p. 133–46.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  67. Jones MGK. Host cell responses to endoparasitic nematode attacks: Structure and function of giant cells and syncytia. Ann Appl Biol. 1981;97:353–72.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Zabala G, Zou J, Tuteja J, Gonzalez DO, Clough SJ, Vodkin LO. Transcriptome changes in the phenylpropanoid pathway of Glycine max in response to Pseudomonas syringae infection. BMC Plant Biol. 2006;6:26.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Matthews BF, Ibrahim HMM, Klink VP. Changes in the expression of genes in soybean roots infected by Nematodes. In: Krezhova D, ed. Soybean - Genetics and Novel Techniques for Yield Enhancement. 2011. ISBN: 978-953-307-721-5, InTech, Available from: http://www.intechopen.com/books/soybean-genetics-and-novel-techniques-for-yield-enhancement/changes-inthe-expression-of-genes-in-soybean-roots-infected-by-nematodes.
  70. Bruske CH. Phenylalanine ammonia lyase activity in tomato roots infected and resistant to the root-knot nematode Meloidogyne incognita. Physiol Pl Path. 1980;16:409–14.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. Giebel J. Phenylalanine and tyrosine ammonia-lyase activities in potato roots and their significance in potato resistance to Heterodera rostochiensis. Nematologica. 1973;19(1):1–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  72. Kaplan DT, Keen NT, Thomason IJ. Studies on the mode of action of glyceollin in soybean incompatibility to the root-knot nematode, Melidogyne incognita. Physiol Pl Path. 1980;16:319–25.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  73. Jones JT, Furlanetto C, Phillips MS. The role of flavonoids produced in response to cyst nematode infection of Arabidopsis thaliana. Nematology. 2007;9:671–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  74. Wasson AP, Pellerone FI, Mathesius U. Silencing the flavonoid pathway in Medicago truncatula inhibits root nodule formation and prevents auxin transport regulation by rhizobia. Plant Cell. 2006;18:1617–29.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. Wuyts N, Lognay G, Swennen R, De Waele D. Nematode infection and reproduction in transgenic and mutant Arabidopsis and tobacco with an altered phenylpropanoid metabolism. J Exp Bot. 2006;57(11):2825–35.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. Wuyts N, Swennen R, De Waele D. Effects of plant phenylpropanoid pathway products and selected terpenoids and alkaloids on the behaviour of the plant-parasitic nematodes Radopholus similis, Pratylenchus penetrans and Meloidogyne incognita. Nematology. 2006;8:89–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  77. Edens RM, Anand SC, Bolla RI. Enzymes of the Phenylpropanoid Pathway in Soybean Infected with Meloidogyne incognita or Heterodera glycines. J Nematol. 1995;27(3):292–303.PubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. Hussey RS, Baker KR. Comparison of methods of collecting inocula for Meloidogyne spp., including a new technique. Plant Dis Rep. 1973;57:1025–8.Google Scholar
  79. Jansen van Vuuren R, Woodward B. The response of cassava cultivars to root-knot nematode infestation: an in vitro method. Euphyrica. 2001;120(1):109–13.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  80. Sijmons PC, Grundler FMW, Von Mende N, Burrows PR, Wyss U. Arabidopsis thaliana as a new model host for plant parasitic nematodes. Plant J. 1991;1:245–54.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  81. Mortazavi A, Williams BA, McCue K, Schaeffer L, Wold B. Mapping and quantifying mammalian transcriptomes by RNA-Seq. Nat Methods. 2008;5(7):621–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. Benjamini Y, Yekutieli D. The control of the false discovery rate in multiple testing under dependency. Ann Stat. 2001;29(4):919–1188.Google Scholar
  83. Thimm O, Blasing O, Gibon Y, Nagel A, Meyer S, Kruger P, et al. MAPMAN: a user-driven tool to display genomics data sets onto diagrams of metabolic pathways and other biological processes. Plant J. 2004;37(6):914–39.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. Du Z, Zhou X, Ling Y, Zhang ZH, Su Z. agriGO: a GO analysis toolkit for the agricultural community. Nucleic Acids Res. 2010;38:W64–70.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. Shen WJ, Forde BG. Efflicient transformation of Agrobactenum spp. by high voltage electroporation. Nucleic Acid Res. 1989;17(20):8385.View ArticlePubMed CentralPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© Iberkleid et al.; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Advertisement