Stress Responses to Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) Infection of Resistant and Susceptible Tomato Plants are DifferentMoshe Adi1, Pfannstiel Jens2, Yariv Brotman3, Kolot Mikhail4, Sobol Iris1, Czosnek Henryk1 and Gorovits Rena1*
1Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture and the Otto Warburg Minerva Center for Agricultural Biotechnology, The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture, Food and Environment, The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Rehovot 76100, Israel
- *Corresponding Author:
- Gorovits Rena
Institute of Plant Sciences and Genetics in Agriculture and
the Otto Warburg Minerva Center for Agricultural Biotechnology
The Robert H. Smith Faculty of Agriculture
Food and Environment
The Hebrew University of Jerusalem
Rehovot 76100, Israel
E-mail: [email protected]
Received date: April 04, 2012; Accepted date: April 24, 2012; Published date: April 26, 2012
Citation: Moshe A, Pfannstiel J, Brotman Y, Kolot M, Sobol I, et al. (2012) Stress Responses to Tomato Yellow Leaf Curl Virus (TYLCV) Infection of Resistant and Susceptible Tomato Plants are Different. Metabolomics S1:006. doi: 10.4172/2153-0769.S1-006
Copyright: © 2012 Moshe A, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Two genetically close inbred tomato lines, one resistant to Tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV) infection (R), the other susceptible (S), showed completely different stress response upon TYLCV infection. S plants were stunted and do not yield, while R plants remained symptomless and yielded. Comparison of protein profiles and metabolites patterns in TYLCV infected R and S tomatoes revealed a completely different host stress response. S plants were characterized by higher levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS) and ROS compounds, the anti-oxidative, pathogenesis-related (PR) and wound-induced proteins were predominant. In contrast, infection of R tomatoes did not drastically activate the same host defense mechanisms as in S plants, while R homeostasis was much more effectively maintained by protein and chemical chaperones. Sources of carbon and nitrogen were less affected by TYLCV in R than in S plants, which could make R plants more balanced and more fit to sustain infection. Even though both tomato types contained comparable amounts of TYLCV at the specified stage of infection, the cellular immune responses were different. Presented results are preliminary and indicate not so much concrete data but the global tender in understanding of the cellular response to virus stress at the background of resistance and susceptibility to TYLCV.