بررسی تغییرات آنزیم کیتیناز در برهمکنش قارچ میکوریز آربوسکولار (Glomus mosseae) و نماتد ریشه‌گرهی (Meloidogyne javanica) در گوجه‌فرنگی

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• فاطمه سهرابی ¹
• علی اکبر فدایی تهرانی ²
• یونس رضایی دانش ³

¹ شهرکرد

² دانشگاه شهرکرد

³ دانشگاه ارومیه

10.22067/jpp.v29i3.31791

چکیده

تحقیقات متعدد بیانگر نقش مثبت قارچ‌های میکوریز در کاهش خسارت عوامل بیماری‌زای گیاهی از طرق مختلف بوده است. افزایش فعالیت آنزیم کیتیناز در گیاهان میکوریزی، یکی از مکانیسم‌های درگیر مورد اشاره در کنترل بیمارگرهای گیاهی توسط قارچ‌های میکوریز آربوسکولار می‌باشد. به منظور بررسی دخالت مکانیسم مذکور در برهمکنش قارچ میکوریز و نماتد ریشه‌گرهی در گوجه‌فرنگی‏، از قارچ میکوریز Glomusmosseae و نماتد Meloidogynejavanica استفاده شد. ابتدا میزان فعالیت آنزیم کیتیناز در گیاهان شاهد (بدون میکوریز) با گیاهان میکوریزی در چهار مرحله متوالی (هفتگی) مقایسه گردید. سپس مایه‌زنی گوجه‌فرنگی با قارچ میکوریز آربوسکولار و نماتد به تنهایی، و در ترکیب با هم و گیاهان بدون مایه زنی با قارچ و نماتد (شاهد) به صورت طرح کاملاً تصادفی با سه تکرار در شرایط گلخانه انجام شد و اندازه‌گیری فعالیت آنزیم در ریشه طی چهار مرحله با فواصل ٤٨ ساعته پس از انجام مایه‌زنی با نماتد، صورت گرفت.میزان فعالیت آنزیم کیتیناز هر نمونه گیاهی به طریق رنگ سنجی و براساس میزان ان استیل گلوکز آمین آزاد شده محاسبه شد. نتایج حاصل نشان‌دهنده بالاتر بودن فعالیت آنزیمکیتیناز در گیاهان میکوریزی نسبت به شاهد بود که دو هفته بعد از تلقیح به حداکثر میزان خود رسید. هم‌چنین حداکثر فعالیت آنزیم در گیاهان تلقیح شده با قارچ میکوریز و نماتد ریشه‌گرهی، در روز چهارمبعد از مایه‌زنی نماتد مشاهده گردید. در مجموع نتایج نشان‌دهنده افزایش فعالیت آنزیم کیتیناز در ریشه گیاهان تیمار شده با قارچ‌ میکوریز در مقایسه با گیاهان غیرمیکوریزی بود و حمله نماتد در حضور قارچ میکوریز افزایش بیشتری در فعالیت کیتیناز ایجاد کرد.‌

کلیدواژه‌ها

• Glomus mosseae
• Meloidogyne javanica
• آنزیم کیتیناز
• گوجه فرنگی

20.1001.1.20084749.1394.29.3.7.4

---

عنوان مقاله [English]

Study on the Chitinase Changes in Interaction of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus (Glomus mosseae) and Root-Knot Nematode (Meloidogyne javanica) on Tomato

نویسندگان [English]

• fatemeh sohrabi ¹
• A. A. Fadaei-Tehrani ²
• Y. Rezaei Danesh ³

² Shahrekord University

³ Urmia University

چکیده [English]

Introduction: Root knot nematode (Meloidogyne javanica) is one of the most important pathogens for different crops such as tomato. There are various methods to control, but none of them are considered as definite and efficient. One alternative that is considered in recent years in the management of root-knot nematode is using of different micro-organisms that are effective against this nematode and decreasing its population. Several studies have indicated the positive role of mycorrhizal fungi in alleviating plant disease causing agents in different ways. One method is to involve the mechanisms in the control of plant pathogens by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi which is promoting of chitinase activity in mycorrhizal plants. In some studies alleviating nematode losses with mycorrhizal fungi inoculation have been related to host plant growth promotion resulted from mineral nutrients absorption especially phosphorous as well as increasing photosynthesis rate. It is hypothesized that these fungi could be able to stimulate host plant defense response led to decreasing pathogenicity. Study on mechanisms involving in root-knot nematode control by the mycorrhizal fungi can be used for these fungi application in nematode management. The aim of this research is to investigatt the chitinase activity changes rate in tomato inoculated host plant by mycorrhizal fungus as well as its role in the control of root-kont nematode. This method has been popular due to environmental pollution resulted from pesticides application. Several studies have indicated the positive role of mycorrhizal fungi in alleviating of plant disease causing agents in different ways. One of these involved mechanisms in the control of plant pathogens by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi is promoting of chitinase activity in mycorrhizal plants.
Materials and Methods: Mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae as well as Meloidogyne javaniza nematode used in this research to study on chitinase activity changes in the interaction between mycorrhizal fungus and root-knot nematode in host tomato plant. Chitinase activity rate compared among control plants (non-mycorrhized) and mycorrhizal plants in four weeks (weekly). Next, the tomato was inoculated with mycorrhizal fungus and nematode separately, and in combination with each other. Non-inoculated plants with fungus and nematode (control) were carried out in greenhouse condition in an entirely randomized design with three replicates and enzyme activity in host plant roots were also measured during four steps every 48 hours followed by nematode inoculation. Chitinase activity rate was calculated by colorimetric and released N-acetyl glucosamine.
Results and Discussion: Results of chitinase activity rate in tomato roots showed a significant difference in enzyme activity among inoculated and non-inoculated (control) host plants at different times. The mean comparison of two treatments in all of four steps also showed the significant difference among inoculated and control host plants. In other words, the enzyme activity rate was more in mycorrhizal plants rather than control plants in all the measuring times.
Results of combined analysis of variance, as well as data mean comparison from chitinase activity showed the significant differences among treatments. However, differences were not significant among different times after inoculation. So, the enzyme activity rate did not show a considerable difference between control, nematode alone and mycorrhizal fungus treatments at different times. Furthermore there were no significant differences between control and nematode alone treatments across all the measuring times. In other words, root knot nematode had no significant effect on chitinase activity increasing in tomato roots. In mycorrhizal host plants inoculated with nematode, enzyme activity average was at highest amounts four days after inoculation with nematode and had a significant difference with other measured times.
Conclusion: Results of this study showed that inoculation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus in tomato roots leads to increasing chitinase activity rate. Investigation of chitinase activity in tomato roots inoculated with mycorrhizal fungus showed the positive effect on treated plants rather than non-inoculated ones. In this study inoculation only with nematode also could not induce the increasing of chitinase acitivity but in combination with mycorrhizal fungus could promote enzyme activity considerably in initial steps of nematode invasion. This study as well as other similar investigations showed that the induction of chitinase activity by mycorrhizal fungus led to the defense of host plant against nematode invasion and the decrease of the damages.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Chitinase enzyme
• Glomus mosseae
• Meloidogyne javanica
• Tomato

مراجع

1- Auge R. 2001. Water relations, drought and VA mycorrhizal symbiosis. Mycorrhiza, 11:3-42.

2- Azcon-Aguilar C., and Barea J.M. 1996. Arbuscularmycorrhizal and biological control of soil born plant pathogens on overview of the mechanisms involved. Mycorrhiza,6: 457-464.

3- Bagyaraj D.J., Manjunath A., and Reddy D.D.R. 1979. Interaction of vesicular arbuscularmycorrhiza with root-knote nematodes on tomato. Plant Soil, 51: 397-403.

4- Barea J. M., Azcon, R., and Azcon-Anguilar C. 2002. Mycorrhizospher interactions to improve plant fitness and soil quality. Antonie van leeuwenhoek. Plant and Soil, 81: 342-351.

5- BollerT., and Mauch F. 1988. Colorimetic assay for chitinase. Pp 430-435 in Wood W.A., and Kellogg S.T. Methods in Enzymology, vol . 161, part B: lignin, pectin and chitin, Academic press, san diego.

6- Bradford M.M. 1976. Rapid and Sensitive method for the quanititation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry, 72: 248-254.

7- Bodker L., Kjoller, R., Kristensen K., and Rosendahl, S. 2002. Interactions between indigenous arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi and Aphanomyceseuteichesin field-grown peas. Mycorrhiza, 12: 7–12.

8- Byrne N.D., Duxbury M., and Sharpe N. 2001. The determination of chitinase activity of prapers:an introductory enzyme assay. Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, 29: 144-146.

9- Chen C., Belanger, R.R., Benhaou N., and Paulitz T.C. 2000. Defens enzymes induced in cucumber roots by treatment with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and pythiumaphanidermatum.plant pathology, 56: 13-23.

10- Chen P., and Robert P.A. 2003. Virulence in M.hapladifferetiat by resistance in common beant. Nematology, 5:39-47.

11- Collinge D.B., Kragh K.M., Mikklsen J.D., Nielsen K.K., Rasmussen U.,andVadK. 1993. Plant Chitinase, 3: 31–40.

12- Dahiya N., Tewari R., Tiwari R.P., and Hoondal G.S. 2005. Chitinase from Entrobacter spp. NRG4: its purification , characterization and reaction pattern. Journal of Biotechnology, Vol8,no.2.

13- David B., Colling A., Karsten M., kragh C., Jsrn D., Mikkelsen R., Klaus K., Nielsen R., and Knud V. 1993. Plant Chitinase, 3: 31-40.

14- Dumas-Gaudot E., Furlan V., Grenier J., and Asselin A. 1992. New acidic chitinase isoforms induced in tobacco roots by vesicular- arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi. Mycorrhiza, 1 :133–136.

15- Elsen A., Declerck S., and DeWaele,D. 2002. Effect of three arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi on root-knot nematode (Meloidogynespp.) infection of Musa. Infomusa, 11:21-23.

16- Francle L.J. 1993. Interaction of nematodes with mycorrhizae and mycorrhizal fungi. In: Kan MW (ed) Nematode Interactions. Champan and Hall, London, UK, pp 203-216.

17- Forge T., Muehlchen A., Hachenberg C., Neilsen G., and Vrain T. 2001. Effects of preplant inoculation of apple with arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi on population growth of the root lesion nematode, pratylenchuspenetrans. Plant Soil, 236:185-196.

18- Harman G.E., Howell C.R., Viterbo A., Chet I., and Lorito M. 2004. Trichodermaspeciesopportunistic.NatureReviewsMicrobiol, 2(1): 43-56.

19- Harrier, L.A., and Watson, C.A. 2004. The potential role of arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi in the bioprotection of plant against soil-borne pathogens in organic and or sustainable farming systems. Pest Manage, 60: 149-157.

20- Hol W.H.G., and Cook R. 2005. An overview of arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi- nematode interactions. Basic Applied Ecology, 6:489-503.

21- Hooker J.E., Jaizme-Vega M., and Atkinson D. 1994. Biocontrol of plant pathogens using arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi. Impact of arbuscularmycorrhizas on sustainable. Agriculture Natural Ecosystem, ALS, pp 191-200.

22- HusseyR.S., and Barker K.R. 1973. A comparsion of methods of collecting inocula of Meloidogynespp.Including a new technique. Nematology, 57,1025-1028.

23- Jenkins W.R. 1964. A rapid centrifugal technique for separating nematodes from soil. Plant Disease Reporter, 48: 672-693.

24- Kombrink E., Shroder M., and Halbroch K. 1988. Several pathogenesis velated proteins in potato are 1,3-B glucanases and chitinase. Journal ofBotany, 85:782-786.

25- Lambais M.R,.andMehdy M.C. 1995. Differential expression of defens related gens in arbuscularmycorrhiza. Journal of Botany, 73: 533-540.

26- Li H.Y., Liu R.J., and Shu H.R. 2002. Interaction between AM fungi and Meloidogyne incognita andtheir effects on the host plant grape. ActaHorticult. Sin, 6:510-514.

27- Linderman R.G. 2000. Effects of mycorrhizas on plant tolerance to disease. ArbuscularMycorrhizas: Physiology and Function, pp 345-367.

28- Menge J.A., Powell C.L., and Bagyaraj D.P. 1984. Inoculum production. In: (Eds.). VA Mycorrhiza. CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton, Florida, USA. VA Mycorrhiza, pp187-199.

29- MerzendorferH., and Zimoch L. 2003. Chitin metabolism in insects: structure, function and regula of chitin synthases and chitinase. J EXP Biol, 206: 4393-412.

30- Ozgonen H., BiciciM., and Frkilic A. 1999. The effect of salicylic acid and endoycorrhizal fungus Glomusintraradices on plant development of tomato and Fusarium wilt caused by Fusariumoxysporum f. sp. Lycopersici. Turkish Journal Agriculture Forest, 25: 25-29.

31- Pan S.Q., Ye X.S., and Kuc J. 1992. Induction of chitinase in tobacco plants systemically protected against blue mold by peronosporatabacinaor tobacco mosaic virus. Phytopathology, 82: 119-123.

32- PhillipsJ.M., and Hayman D.S. 1974. Improved procedures clearing root and staining parasitic and vesicular arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi for rapid assessment of infections. Transaction of British Mycological Society, 55: 158-161.

33- Pozo M.J., Azcon-Aguilar C., Dumas-Gaudot E., and BareaJ.M . 1998. Chitosane and Chitinase activities in tomato roots during interactions with arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi or Phytophthoraparasitica. Journal of experimental Botany, Vol. 49. 1729-1739.

34- Pozo M.J., Azcon-Aguilar C., Dumas-Gaudot E., and Barea J.M. 1999. Beta-1-3 glucanase activities in tomato roots inoculated with the arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi and or Phytophthoraparasitica and their possible involvement in bioprotection. Plant Science, 14:149-157.

35- Pozo M.J., Cordier C., Dumas-Gaudot E., Gianinazzi S., Barea J.M., and Azcon Aguilar C. 2002. Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. Journal of Experimental Botany, 53: 525-534.

36- Pozo M.J., Dumas-Gaudot E., Slezack S., Gianinazzi-Pearson V., Azcon-Aguilarc C., and Barea J.M. 1996. Induction of new chitinase isoforms in tomato roots during interaction with Glomusmosseae and Phythophthoranicotianavarparasitica. Agronomie, 16:689-97.

37- RezaeeDanesh Y., MohammadiGoltapeh A., Alizadeh A., and Varma A. 2007. Studies on taxonomy and in vitro culturing possibility soybean and alfalfa-associated arbuscularmycorrhizas in Iran. Ph.Dthesis. Plant protection Department, Faculty of agriculture. TarbiatModarresuniversity, Pp 346.

38- Richard A., and Emilio F. 2005.Plant parasitic in subtropical and tropical agricultur , CABI International, Pub, 319p.

39- Roserwarne G.M., Barker S.J., and Smith S.E. 1997. Production of near-synchronous fungal colonization in tomato for developmental and molecular analyses of mycorrhiza. Printed in Great Britain,Mycorrhiza, 101(8): 966-970.

40- SasserJ.N., and Freckman D.W. 1987. A world perspective on nematology: the role of the society. In: VEECH, J. A. and Dickson, D.W. (eds). Vista on Nematology. Society ofNematologist, pp 7-14.

41- SaeedAkhtarM., and Siddiqui Z.A. 2008. Biocontrol of a root rot disease complex of chickpea by Glomusintraradices, Rhizobium sp. And Pseudomonas straita. Mycology and Plant Pathology, 410-417.

42- Saeedzadeh A., Kheiri, A., Okhovvat S.M., and Hoseininejad A. 2003. Study on interaction between root-knot nematode Meloidogynejavanica and wilt fungus Verticillium dahlia on olive seedlings in greenhouse. Communication Applied Biological Science, 68: 139-143.

43- SiddiquiZ.A., and Mahmood I. 1998. Effect of a plant growth promothing bacterium, an AM fungus and soil types on the morphometrics and reproduction of Meloidogynejavanica on tomato. Applied Soil Ecology, 8:77-84.

44- Smith S.E., and Read D.J. 1997. Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. 2nd ed. Academic Press, London.

45- Sohrabi F., Fadaei-Tehrani A.A., RezaeeDanesh Y., and Jamalli-Zavareh A. 2012. . Study on interaction between arbuscularmycorrhizal fungi (Glomusmosseae and Glomusintraradices) and root-knot nematode (Meloidogynejavanica) in tomato. Journal of Plant Pathology ,Vol. 48, No. 3, 2012: 131 -134.

46- Spanu P., Boller T., Ludwig A., Wiemken, A. Faccioa A., and Bonfante-Fasolo P. 1989. Chitinase in roots of mycorrhizalAlliumPorrum regulation and localization. Planta, 177: 447-550.

47- Stol V.S., and Blanchard J.S. 1990. Buffers: Principles and Practice. Pp 24-38 in Deutscher M.P. methods in Enzymology. Vol. 182: Guide to protein purification. Academic press. San diego.

48- Stroble N.E.1981. Interactions of Vesicular ArbuscularMycorrhizal Fungi, Meloidogyne incognita, and Soil Fertility on Peach. Ecology and Epidemiology, 72:690-694.

49- TaylorD.P., and Netscher C. 1974. An improved technique for preparing perineal patterns of Meloidogyne spp. Nematologica, 20: 268-269.

50- Trudgill D.L., and Block V.C. 2001. Apomictic, polyphagous root-knotnematodes: dxceptionally successful and damaging biotrophic root pathogens.Annual Review of Phytopathology, 39:53-77.

51- Volpin H., Elkind Y., and Kapulnik Y. 1994. A Vesicular ArbuscularMycorrhizal fungus (Glomusintraradices) induces a defense response in alfalfa roots. Plant Physiology, 104: 683-689.

52- Wen C.M., Tseng C.S., Cheng C.Y., and Li Y.K. 2002. Purification, characterization and cloning of chitinase from Bacillus sp. NCTU2, Biotechnology Applied Biochemistry, 35: 213-219.

53- Yan Li H., Yang G.D., Shu H.R., Yang Y.T., Ye B.X., Nishida I., and Zheng C.C. 2006. Colonization by the ArbuscularMycorrhizal Fungus GlomusversiformeInduces a DefenseResponseAgainst the Root-knot Nematode Meloidogyneincognita in the Grapevine (VitisamurensisRupr.), Which IncludesTranscriptional Activation of the Class III Chitinase Gene VCH3. Plant Cell Physiology, 47: 154–163.

54- ZhangY.Y., and Punja Z.K. 1994. Induction and characterization of chitinase pathogen inoculation . Plant Science, 99:141-150.

55- Zhong W.F., Jiang L.H., Yan W.Z., Cai P.Z., Zhang Z.X., and Pei Y. 2003. Cloning and sequencing of chitinase gene from Bacillusthuringiensissubspisraelensis. ChunaXueBao, 30: 364-369.