ARTICLE   Open Access    

MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani

  • # Authors contributed equally: Lei Zhao, Yusong Liu

More Information
  • Received: 09 September 2024
    Revised: 30 September 2024
    Accepted: 12 October 2024
    Published online: 06 January 2025
    Fruit Research  5 Article number: e001 (2025)  |  Cite this article
  • Apple replant disease (ARD) caused by the pathogen Fusarium solani is a destructive disease in apple planting areas worldwide, which leads to the decline of apple quality and yield. WRKY transcription factors are involved in the process of plants responding to various environmental stresses, but the function of WRKY TFs in ARD is unclear. In this study, the expression of MdWRKY20 was significantly increased after infection of apple rootstock 'M9T337' with F. solani. Transgenic analysis showed that the resistance of apple callus and Arabidopsis to F. solani increased after overexpression of MdWRKY20. Ectopic expression of MdWRKY20 also significantly enhanced antioxidant capacity in Arabidopsis under treatment with F. solani. Then, MdWRKY20 was found to bind directly to the W-box II of the MdPR1 promoter and significantly promoted its expression. In summary, MdWRKY20 plays a positive role in regulating the resistance of apples to F. solani.
  • Grapevines are among the most widely grown and economically important fruit crops globally. Grapes are used not only for wine making and juice, but also are consumed fresh and as dried fruit[1]. Additionally, grapes have been increasingly recognized as an important source of resveratrol (trans-3, 5,4'-trihydroxystilbene), a non-flavonoid stilbenoid polyphenol that in grapevine may act as a phytoalexin. In humans, it has been widely reported that dietary resveratrol has beneficial impacts on various aspects of health[2, 3]. Because of the potential value of resveratrol both to grapevine physiology and human medicine, resveratrol biosynthesis and its regulation has become an important avenue of research. Similar to other stilbenoids, resveratrol synthesis utilizes key enzymes of the phenylpropanoid pathway including phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), cinnamate 4-hydroxylase (C4H), and 4-coumarate-CoA ligase (4CL). In the final steps, stilbene synthase (STS), a type II polyketide synthase, produces trans-resveratrol from p-coumaroyl-CoA and malonyl-CoA, while chalcone synthase (CHS) synthesizes flavonoids from the same substrates[4, 5]. Moreover, trans-resveratrol is a precursor for other stilbenoids such as cis-resveratrol, trans-piceid, cis-piceid, ε-viniferin and δ-viniferin[6]. It has been reported that stilbenoid biosynthesis pathways are targets of artificial selection during grapevine domestication[7] and resveratrol accumulates in various structures in response to both biotic and abiotic stresses[812]. This stress-related resveratrol synthesis is mediated, at least partialy, through the regulation of members of the STS gene family. Various transcription factors (TFs) participating in regulating STS genes in grapevine have been reported. For instance, MYB14 and MYB15[13, 14] and WRKY24[15] directly bind to the promoters of specific STS genes to activate transcription. VvWRKY8 physically interacts with VvMYB14 to repress VvSTS15/21 expression[16], whereas VqERF114 from Vitis quinquangularis accession 'Danfeng-2' promotes expression of four STS genes by interacting with VqMYB35 and binding directly to cis-elements in their promoters[17]. Aided by the release of the first V. vinifera reference genome assembly[18], genomic and transcriptional studies have revealed some of the main molecular mechanisms involved in fruit ripening[1924] and stilbenoid accumulation[8, 25] in various grapevine cultivars. Recently, it has been reported that a root restriction treatment greatly promoted the accumulation of trans-resveratrol, phenolic acid, flavonol and anthocyanin in 'Summer Black' (Vitis vinifera × Vitis labrusca) berry development during ripening[12]. However, most of studies mainly focus on a certain grape variety, not to investigate potential distinctions in resveratrol biosynthesis among different Vitis genotypes. In this study, we analyzed the resveratrol content in seven grapevine accessions and three berry structures, at three stages of fruit development. We found that the fruits of two wild, Chinese grapevines, Vitis amurensis 'Tonghua-3' and Vitis davidii 'Tangwei' showed significant difference in resveratrol content during development. These were targeted for transcriptional profiling to gain insight into the molecular aspects underlying this difference. This work provides a theoretical basis for subsequent systematic studies of genes participating in resveratrol biosynthesis and their regulation. Further, the results should be useful in the development of grapevine cultivars exploiting the genetic resources of wild grapevines. For each of the seven cultivars, we analyzed resveratrol content in the skin, pulp, and seed at three stages of development: Green hard (G), véraison (V), and ripe (R) (Table 1). In general, we observed the highest accumulation in skins at the R stage (0.43−2.99 µg g−1 FW). Lesser amounts were found in the pulp (0.03−0.36 µg g−1 FW) and seed (0.05−0.40 µg g−1 FW) at R, and in the skin at the G (0.12−0.34 µg g−1 FW) or V stages (0.17−1.49 µg g−1 FW). In all three fruit structures, trans-resveratrol showed an increasing trend with development, and this was most obvious in the skin. It is worth noting that trans-resveratrol was not detectable in the skin of 'Tangwei' at the G or V stage, but had accumulated to 2.42 µg g−1 FW by the R stage. The highest amount of extractable trans-resveratrol (2.99 µg g−1 FW) was found in 'Tonghua-3' skin at the R stage.
    Table 1.  Resveratrol concentrations in the skin, pulp and seed of berries from different grapevine genotypes at green hard, véraison and ripe stages.
    StructuresSpeciesAccessions or cultivarsContent of trans-resveratrol (μg g−1 FW)
    Green hardVéraisonRipe
    SkinV. davidiiTangweindnd2.415 ± 0.220
    V. amurensisTonghua-30.216 ± 0.0410.656 ± 0.0432.988 ± 0.221
    Shuangyou0.233 ± 0.0620.313 ± 0.0172.882 ± 0.052
    V. amurensis × V. ViniferaBeibinghong0.336 ± 0.0761.486 ± 0.1771.665 ± 0.100
    V. viniferaRed Global0.252 ± 0.0510.458 ± 0.0571.050 ± 0.129
    Thompson seedless0.120 ± 0.0251.770 ± 0.0320.431 ± 0.006
    V. vinifera × V. labruscaJumeigui0.122 ± 0.0160.170 ± 0.0210.708 ± 0.135
    PulpV. davidiiTangwei0.062 ± 0.0060.088 ± 0.009nd
    V. amurensisTonghua-30.151 ± 0.0660.324 ±0.1040.032 ± 0.004
    Shuangyou0.053 ± 0.0080.126 ± 0.0440.041 ± 0.017
    V. amurensis × V. ViniferaBeibinghong0.057 ± 0.0140.495 ± 0.0680.087 ± 0.021
    V. viniferaRed Global0.059 ± 0.0180.159 ± 0.0130.027 ± 0.004
    Thompson seedless0.112 ± 0.0160.059 ± 0.020nd
    V. vinifera × V. labruscaJumeigui0.072 ± 0.0100.063 ± 0.0170.359 ± 0.023
    SeedV. davidiiTangwei0.096 ± 0.0140.169 ± 0.0280.049 ± 0.006
    V. amurensisTonghua-30.044 ± 0.0040.221 ± 0.0240.113 ± 0.027
    Shuangyound0.063 ± 0.0210.116 ± 0.017
    V. amurensis × V. ViniferaBeibinghongnd0.077 ± 0.0030.400 ± 0.098
    V. viniferaRed Global0.035 ± 0.0230.142 ± 0.0360.199 ± 0.009
    Thompson seedless
    V. vinifera × V. labruscaJumeigui0.077 ± 0.0250.017 ± 0.0040.284 ± 0.021
    'nd' indicates not detected in samples, and '−' shows no samples are collected due to abortion.
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    To gain insight into gene expression patterns influencing resveratrol biosynthesis in 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3', we profiled the transcriptomes of developing berries at G, V, and R stages, using sequencing libraries representing three biological replicates from each cultivar and stage. A total of 142.49 Gb clean data were obtained with an average of 7.92 Gb per replicate, with average base Q30 > 92.5%. Depending on the sample, between 80.47%−88.86% of reads aligned to the V. vinifera reference genome (Supplemental Table S1), and of these, 78.18%−86.66% mapped to unique positions. After transcript assembly, a total of 23,649 and 23,557 unigenes were identified as expressed in 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3', respectively. Additionally, 1,751 novel transcripts were identified (Supplemental Table S2), and among these, 1,443 could be assigned a potential function by homology. Interestingly, the total number of expressed genes gradually decreased from the G to R stage in 'Tangwei', but increased in 'Tonghua-3'. About 80% of the annotated genes showed fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped (FPKM) values > 0.5 in all samples, and of these genes, about 40% showed FPKM values between 10 and 100 (Fig. 1a). Correlation coefficients and principal component analysis of the samples based on FPKM indicated that the biological replicates for each cultivar and stage showed similar properties, indicating that the transcriptome data was reliable for further analyses (Fig. 1b & c).
    Figure 1.  Properties of transcriptome data of 'Tangwei' (TW) and 'Tonghua-3' (TH) berry at green hard (G), véraison (V), and ripe (R) stages. (a) Total numbers of expressed genes with fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped (FPKM) values; (b) Heatmap of the sample correlation analysis; (c) Principal component analysis (PCA) showing clustering pattern among TW and TH at G, V and R samples based on global gene expression profiles.
    By comparing the transcriptomes of 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' at the G, V and R stages, we identified 6,770, 3,353 and 6,699 differentially expressed genes (DEGs), respectively (Fig. 2a). Of these genes, 1,134 were differentially expressed between the two cultivars at all three stages (Fig. 2b). We also compared transcriptional profiles between two adjacent developmental stages (G vs V; V vs R) for each cultivar. Between G and V, we identified 1,761 DEGs that were up-regulated and 2,691 DEGs that were down-regulated in 'Tangwei', and 1,836 and 1,154 DEGs that were up-regulated or down-regulated, respectively, in 'Tonghua-3'. Between V and R, a total of 1,761 DEGs were up-regulated and 1,122 DEGs were down-regulated in 'Tangwei', whereas 2,774 DEGs and 1,287 were up-regulated or down-regulated, respectively, in 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 2c). Among the 16,822 DEGs between the two cultivars at G, V, and R (Fig. 2a), a total of 4,570, 2,284 and 4,597 had gene ontology (GO) annotations and could be further classified to over 60 functional subcategories. The most significantly represented GO terms between the two cultivars at all three stages were response to metabolic process, catalytic activity, binding, cellular process, single-organism process, cell, cell part and biological regulation (Fig. 2d).
    Figure 2.  Analysis of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) at the green hard (G), véraison (V), and ripe (R) stages in 'Tangwei' (TW) and 'Tonghua-3' (TH). (a) Number of DEGs and (b) numbers of overlapping DEGs between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' at G, V and R; (c) Overlap among DEGs between G and V, and V and R, for 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3'; (d) Gene ontology (GO) functional categorization of DEGs.
    We also identified 57 Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathways that were enriched, of which 32, 28, and 31 were enriched at the G, V, and R stages, respectively. Seven of the KEGG pathways were enriched at all three developmental stages: photosynthesis-antenna proteins (ko00196); glycine, serine and threonine metabolism (ko00260); glycolysis/gluconeogenesis (ko00010); carbon metabolism (ko01200); fatty acid degradation (ko00071); cysteine and methionine metabolism (ko00270); and valine, leucine and isoleucine degradation (ko00280) (Supplemental Tables S3S5). Furthermore, we found that the predominant KEGG pathways were distinct for each developmental stage. For example, phenylpropanoid biosynthesis (ko00940) was enriched only at the R stage. Overall, the GO and KEGG pathway enrichment analysis showed that the DEGs in 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' were enriched for multiple biological processes during the three stages of fruit development. We then analyzed the expression of genes with potential functions in resveratrol and flavonoid biosynthesis between the two cultivars and three developmental stages (Fig. 3 and Supplemental Table S6). We identified 30 STSs, 13 PALs, two C4Hs and nine 4CLs that were differentially expressed during at least one of the stages of fruit development between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3'. Interestingly, all of the STS genes showed increasing expression with development in both 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3'. In addition, the expression levels of STS, C4H and 4CL genes at V and R were significantly higher in 'Tonghua-3' than in 'Tangwei'. Moreover, 25 RESVERATROL GLUCOSYLTRANSFERASE (RSGT), 27 LACCASE (LAC) and 21 O-METHYLTRANSFERASE (OMT) DEGs were identified, and most of these showed relatively high expression at the G and V stages in 'Tangwei' or R in 'Tonghua-3'. It is worth noting that the expression of the DEGs related to flavonoid biosynthesis, including CHS, FLAVONOL SYNTHASE (FLS), FLAVONOID 3′-HYDROXYLASE (F3'H), DIHYDROFLAVONOL 4-REDUCTASE (DFR), ANTHOCYANIDIN REDUCTASE (ANR) and LEUCOANTHOCYANIDIN REDUCTASE (LAR) were generally higher in 'Tangwei' than in 'Tonghua-3'at G stage.
    Figure 3.  Expression of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) associated with phenylalanine metabolism. TW, 'Tangwei'; TH, 'Tonghua-3'. PAL, PHENYLALANINE AMMONIA LYASE; C4H, CINNAMATE 4-HYDROXYLASE; 4CL, 4-COUMARATE-COA LIGASE; STS, STILBENE SYNTHASE; RSGT, RESVERATROL GLUCOSYLTRANSFERASE; OMT, O-METHYLTRANSFERASE; LAC, LACCASE; CHS, CHALCONE SYNTHASE; CHI, CHALCONE ISOMERASE; F3H, FLAVANONE 3-HYDROXYLASE; FLS, FLAVONOL SYNTHASE; F3'H, FLAVONOID 3′-HYDROXYLASE; DFR, DIHYDROFLAVONOL 4-REDUCTASE; LAR, LEUCOANTHOCYANIDIN REDUCTASE; ANR, ANTHOCYANIDIN REDUCTASE; LDOX, LEUCOANTHOCYANIDIN DIOXYGENASE; UFGT, UDP-GLUCOSE: FLAVONOID 3-O-GLUCOSYLTRANSFERASE.
    Among all DEGs identified in this study, 757 encoded potential TFs, and these represented 57 TF families. The most highly represented of these were the AP2/ERF, bHLH, NAC, WRKY, bZIP, HB-HD-ZIP and MYB families with a total of 76 DEGs (Fig. 4a). We found that the number of downregulated TF genes was greater than upregulated TF genes at G and V, and 48 were differentially expressed between the two cultivars at all three stages (Fig. 4b). Several members of the ERF, MYB, WRKY and bHLH families showed a strong increase in expression at the R stage (Fig. 4c). In addition, most of the TF genes showed > 2-fold higher expression in 'Tonghua-3' than in 'Tangwei' at the R stage. In particular, a few members, such as ERF11 (VIT_07s0141g00690), MYB105 (VIT_01s0026g02600), and WRKY70 (VIT_13s0067g03140), showed > 100-fold higher expression in 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 4d).
    Figure 4.  Differentially expressed transcription factor (TF) genes. (a) The number of differentially expressed genes (DEGs) in different TF families; (b) Number of differentially expressed TF genes, numbers of overlapping differentially expressed TF genes, and (c) categorization of expression fold change (FC) for members of eight TF families between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' at green hard (G), véraison (V), and ripe (R) stages; (d) Heatmap expression profiles of the three most strongly differentially expressed TF genes from each of eight TF families.
    We constructed a gene co-expression network using the weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA) package, which uses a systems biology approach focused on understanding networks rather than individual genes. In the network, 17 distinct modules (hereafter referred to by color as portrayed in Fig. 5a), with module sizes ranging from 91 (antiquewhite4) to 1,917 (magenta) were identified (Supplemental Table S7). Of these, three modules (ivory, orange and blue) were significantly correlated with resveratrol content, cultivar ('Tonghua-3'), and developmental stage (R). The blue module showed the strongest correlation with resveratrol content (cor = 0.6, p-value = 0.008) (Fig. 5b). KEGG enrichment analysis was carried out to further analyze the genes in these three modules. Genes in the ivory module were significantly enriched for phenylalanine metabolism (ko00360), stilbenoid, diarylheptanoid and gingerol biosynthesis (ko00945), and flavonoid biosynthesis (ko00941), whereas the most highly enriched terms of the blue and orange modules were plant-pathogen interaction (ko04626), plant hormone signal transduction (ko04075) and circadian rhythm-plant (ko04712) (Supplemental Fig. S1). Additionally, a total of 36 genes encoding TFs including in 15 ERFs, 10 WRKYs, six bHLHs, two MYBs, one MADs-box, one HSF and one TRY were identified as co-expressed with one or more STSs in these three modules (Fig. 5c and Supplemental Table S8), suggesting that these TFs may participate in the STS regulatory network.
    Figure 5.  Results of weighted gene co-expression network analysis (WGCNA). (a) Hierarchical clustering tree indicating co-expression modules; (b) Module-trait relationship. Each row represents a module eigengene, and each column represents a trait. The corresponding correlation and p-value are indicated within each module. Res, resveratrol; TW, 'Tangwei'; TH, 'Tonghua-3'; (c) Transcription factors and stilbene synthase gene co-expression networks in the orange, blue and ivory modules.
    To assess the reliability of the RNA-seq data, 12 genes determined to be differentially expressed by RNA-seq were randomly selected for analysis of expression via real-time quantitative PCR (RT-qPCR). This set comprised two PALs, two 4CLs, two STSs, two WRKYs, two LACs, one OMT, and MYB14. In general, these RT-qPCR results strongly confirmed the RNA-seq-derived expression patterns during fruit development in the two cultivars. The correlation coefficients between RT-qPCR and RNA-seq were > 0.6, except for LAC (VIT_02s0154g00080) (Fig. 6).
    Figure 6.  Comparison of the expression patterns of 12 randomly selected differentially expressed genes by RT-qPCR (real-time quantitative PCR) and RNA-seq. R-values are correlation coefficients between RT-qPCR and RNA-seq. FPKM, fragments per kilobase of transcript per million fragments mapped; TW, 'Tangwei'; TH, 'Tonghua-3'; G, green hard; V, véraison; R, ripe.
    Grapevines are among the most important horticultural crops worldwide[26], and recently have been the focus of studies on the biosynthesis of resveratrol. Resveratrol content has previously been found to vary depending on cultivar as well as environmental stresses[27]. In a study of 120 grape germplasm cultivars during two consecutive years, the extractable amounts of resveratrol in berry skin were significantly higher in seeded cultivars than in seedless ones, and were higher in both berry skin and seeds in wine grapes relative to table grapes[28]. Moreover, it was reported that total resveratrol content constantly increased from véraison to complete maturity, and ultraviolet-C (UV-C) irradiation significantly stimulated the accumulation of resveratrol of berry during six different development stages in 'Beihong' (V. vinifera × V. amurensis)[9]. Intriguingly, a recent study reported that bud sport could lead to earlier accumulation of trans-resveratrol in the grape berries of 'Summer Black' and its bud sport 'Nantaihutezao' from the véraison to ripe stages[29]. In the present study, resveratrol concentrations in seven accessions were determined by high performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) in the seed, pulp and skin at three developmental stages (G, V and R). Resveratrol content was higher in berry skins than in pulp or seeds, and were higher in the wild Chinese accessions compared with the domesticated cultivars. The highest resveratrol content (2.99 µg g−1 FW) was found in berry skins of 'Tonghua-3' at the R stage (Table 1). This is consistent with a recent study of 50 wild Chinese accessions and 45 cultivars, which reported that resveratrol was significantly higher in berry skins than in leaves[30]. However, we did not detect trans-resveratrol in the skins of 'Tangwei' during the G or V stages (Table 1). To explore the reason for the difference in resveratrol content between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3', as well as the regulation mechanism of resveratrol synthesis and accumulation during berry development, we used transcriptional profiling to compare gene expression between these two accessions at the G, V, and R stages. After sequence read alignment and transcript assembly, 23,649 and 23,557 unigenes were documented in 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3', respectively. As anticipated, due to the small number of structures sampled, this was less than that (26,346) annotated in the V. vinifera reference genome[18]. Depending on the sample, 80.47%−88.86% of sequence reads aligned to a single genomic location (Supplemental Table S1); this is similar to the alignment rate of 85% observed in a previous study of berry development in Vitis vinifera[19]. Additionally, 1751 novel transcripts were excavated (Supplemental Table S2) after being compared with the V. vinifera reference genome annotation information[18, 31]. A similar result was also reported in a previous study when transcriptome analysis was performed to explore the underlying mechanism of cold stress between Chinese wild Vitis amurensis and Vitis vinifera[32]. We speculate that these novel transcripts are potentially attributable to unfinished V. vinifera reference genome sequence (For example: quality and depth of sequencing) or species-specific difference between Vitis vinifera and other Vitis. In our study, the distribution of genes based on expression level revealed an inverse trend from G, V to R between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 1). Furthermore, analysis of DEGs suggested that various cellular processes including metabolic process and catalytic activity were altered between the two cultivars at all three stages (Fig. 2 and Supplemental Table S3S5). These results are consistent with a previous report that a large number of DEGs and 100 functional subcategories were identified in 'Tonghua-3' grape berries after exposure to UV-C radiation[8]. Resveratrol biosynthesis in grapevine is dependent on the function of STSs, which compete with the flavonoid branch in the phenylalanine metabolic pathway. Among the DEGs detected in this investigation, genes directly involved in the resveratrol synthesis pathway, STSs, C4Hs and 4CLs, were expressed to significantly higher levels in 'Tonghua-3' than in 'Tangwei' during V and R. On the other hand, DEGs representing the flavonoid biosynthesis pathway were upregulated in 'Tangwei', but downregulated in 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 3 and Supplemental Table S6). These expression differences may contribute to the difference in resveratrol content between the two cultivars at these stages. We note that 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' are from two highly diverged species with different genetic backgrounds. There might be some unknown genetic differences between the two genomes, resulting in more than 60 functional subcategories being enriched (Fig. 2d) and the expression levels of genes with putative roles in resveratrol biosynthesis being significantly higher in 'Tonghua-3' than in 'Tangwei' during V and R (Fig. 3). A previous proteomic study also reported that the expression profiles of several enzymes in the phenylalanine metabolism pathway showed significant differences between V. quinquangularis accession 'Danfeng-2' and V. vinifera cv. 'Cabernet Sauvignon' at the véraison and ripening stages[33]. In addition, genes such as RSGT, OMT and LAC involved in the production of derivatized products of resveratrol were mostly present at the G and V stages of 'Tangwei', potentially resulting in limited resveratrol accumulation. However, we found that most of these also revealed relatively high expression at R in 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 3). Despite this situation, which does not seem to be conducive for the accumulation of resveratrol, it still showed the highest content (Table 1). It has been reported that overexpression of two grapevine peroxidase VlPRX21 and VlPRX35 genes from Vitis labruscana in Arabidopsis may be involved in regulating stilbene synthesis[34], and a VqBGH40a belonging to β-glycoside hydrolase family 1 in Chinese wild Vitis quinquangularis can hydrolyze trans-piceid to enhance trans-resveratrol content[35]. However, most studies mainly focus on several TFs that participate in regulation of STS gene expression, including ERFs, MYBs and WRKYs[13, 15, 17]. For example, VvWRKY18 activated the transcription of VvSTS1 and VvSTS2 by directly binding the W-box elements within the specific promoters and resulting in the enhancement of stilbene phytoalexin biosynthesis[36]. VqWRKY53 promotes expression of VqSTS32 and VqSTS41 through participation in a transcriptional regulatory complex with the R2R3-MYB TFs VqMYB14 and VqMYB15[37]. VqMYB154 can activate VqSTS9/32/42 expression by directly binding to the L5-box and AC-box motifs in their promoters to improve the accumulation of stilbenes[38]. In this study, we found a total of 757 TF-encoding genes among the DEGs, including representatives of the MYB, AP2/ERF, bHLH, NAC, WRKY, bZIP and HB-HD-ZIP families. The most populous family was MYB, representing 76 DEGs at G, V and R between 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' (Fig. 4). A recent report indicated that MYB14, MYB15 and MYB13, a third uncharacterized member of Subgroup 2 (S2), could bind to 30 out of 47 STS family genes. Moreover, all three MYBs could also bind to several PAL, C4H and 4CL genes, in addition to shikimate pathway genes, the WRKY03 stilbenoid co-regulator and resveratrol-modifying gene[39]. VqbZIP1 from Vitis quinquangularis has been shown to promote the expression of VqSTS6, VqSTS16 and VqSTS20 by interacting with VqSnRK2.4 and VqSnRK2.6[40]. In the present study, we found that a gene encoding a bZIP-type TF (VIT_12s0034g00110) was down-regulated in 'Tangwei', but up-regulated in 'Tonghua-3', at G, V and R (Fig. 4). We also identified 36 TFs that were co-expressed with 17 STSs using WGCNA analysis, suggesting that these TFs may regulate STS gene expression (Fig. 5 and Supplemental Table S8). Among these, a STS (VIT_16s0100g00880) was together co-expressed with MYB14 (VIT_07s0005g03340) and WRKY24 (VIT_06s0004g07500) that had been identified as regulators of STS gene expression[13, 15]. A previous report also indicated that a bHLH TF (VIT_11s0016g02070) had a high level of co-expression with STSs and MYB14/15[15]. In the current study, six bHLH TFs were identified as being co-expressed with one or more STSs and MYB14 (Fig. 5 and Supplemental Table S8). However, further work needs to be done to determine the potential role of these TFs that could directly target STS genes or indirectly regulate stilbene biosynthesis by formation protein complexes with MYB or others. Taken together, these results identify a small group of TFs that may play important roles in resveratrol biosynthesis in grapevine. In summary, we documented the trans-resveratrol content of seven grapevine accessions by HPLC and performed transcriptional analysis of the grape berry in two accessions with distinct patterns of resveratrol accumulation during berry development. We found that the expression levels of genes with putative roles in resveratrol biosynthesis were significantly higher in 'Tonghua-3' than in 'Tangwei' during V and R, consistent with the difference in resveratrol accumulation between these accessions. Moreover, several genes encoding TFs including MYBs, WRKYs, ERFs, bHLHs and bZIPs were implicated as regulators of resveratrol biosynthesis. The results from this study provide insights into the mechanism of different resveratrol accumulation in various grapevine accessions. V. davidii 'Tangwei', V. amurensis × V. Vinifera 'Beibinghong'; V. amurensis 'Tonghua-3' and 'Shuangyou'; V. vinifera × V. labrusca 'Jumeigui'; V. vinifera 'Red Globe' and 'Thompson Seedless' were maintained in the grapevine germplasm resource at Northwest A&F University, Yangling, Shaanxi, China (34°20' N, 108°24' E). Fruit was collected at the G, V, and R stages, as judged by skin and seed color and soluble solid content. Each biological replicate comprised three fruit clusters randomly chosen from three plants at each stage. About 40−50 representative berries were separated into skin, pulp, and seed, and immediately frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C. Resveratrol extraction was carried out as previously reported[8]. Quantitative analysis of resveratrol content was done using a Waters 600E-2487 HPLC system (Waters Corporation, Milford, MA, USA) equipped with an Agilent ZORBAX SB-C18 column (5 µm, 4.6 × 250 mm). Resveratrol was identified by co-elution with a resveratrol standard, and quantified using a standard curve. Each sample was performed with three biological replicates. Three biological replicates of each stage (G, V and R) from whole berries of 'Tangwei' and 'Tonghua-3' were used for all RNA-Seq experiments. Total RNA was extracted from 18 samples using the E.Z.N.A. Plant RNA Kit (Omega Bio-tek, Norcross, GA, USA). For each sample, sequencing libraries were constructed from 1 μg RNA using the NEBNext UltraTM RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (New England Biolabs, Ipswich, MA, USA). The library preparations were sequenced on an Illumina HiSeq2500 platform (Illumina, San Diego, CA, USA) at Biomarker Technologies Co., Ltd. (Beijing, China). Raw sequence reads were filtered to remove low-quality reads, and then mapped to the V. vinifera 12X reference genome[18, 31] using TopHat v.2.1.0[41]. The mapped reads were assembled into transcript models using Stringtie v2.0.4[42]. Transcript abundance and gene expression levels were estimated as FPKM[43]. The formula is as follows:
    FPKM =cDNA FragmentsMapped Fragments(Millions)× Transcript Length (kb)
    Biological replicates were evaluated using Pearson's Correlation Coefficient[44] and principal component analysis. DEGs were identified using the DEGSeq R package v1.12.0[45]. A false discovery rate (FDR) threshold was used to adjust the raw P values for multiple testing[46]. Genes with a fold change of ≥ 2 and FDR < 0.05 were assigned as DEGs. GO and KEGG enrichment analyses of DEGs were performed using GOseq R packages v1.24.0[47] and KOBAS v2.0.12[48], respectively. Co-expression networks were constructed based on FPKM values ≥ 1 and coefficient of variation ≥ 0.5 using the WGCNA R package v1.47[49]. The adjacency matrix was generated with a soft thresholding power of 16. Then, a topological overlap matrix (TOM) was constructed using the adjacency matrix, and the dissimilarity TOM was used to construct the hierarchy dendrogram. Modules containing at least 30 genes were detected and merged using the Dynamic Tree Cut algorithm with a cutoff value of 0.25[50]. The co-expression networks were visualized using Cytoscape v3.7.2[51]. RT-qPCR was carried out using the SYBR Green Kit (Takara Biotechnology, Beijing, China) and the Step OnePlus Real-Time PCR System (Applied Biosystems, Foster, CA, USA). Gene-specific primers were designed using Primer Premier 5.0 software (PREMIER Biosoft International, Palo Alto, CA, USA). Cycling parameters were 95 °C for 30 s, 42 cycles of 95 °C for 5 s, and 60 °C for 30 s. The grapevine ACTIN1 (GenBank Accession no. AY680701) gene was used as an internal control. Each reaction was performed in triplicate for each of the three biological replicates. Relative expression levels of the selected genes were calculated using the 2−ΔΔCᴛ method[52]. Primer sequences are listed in Supplemental Table S9. This research was supported by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2019YFD1001401) and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31872071 and U1903107).
  • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
  • Supplemental Table S1 Primer Sequence used in the experiment.
    Supplemental Fig. S1 Infection rate and mortality rate of apple rootstock 'M9T337' infected with F. solani after 12 d.
    Supplemental Fig. S2 Relative expression of MdWRKY20 in different tissues of apple.
    Supplemental Fig. S3 Gene expression analysis of transgenic Arabidopsis lines.
    Supplemental Fig. S4 Germination of Arabidopsis under control and F. solani treatment.
  • [1]

    Mazzola M, Gu YH. 2000. Impact of wheat cultivation on microbial communities from replant soils and apple growth in greenhouse trials. Phytopathology 90:114−19

    doi: 10.1094/PHYTO.2000.90.2.114

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [2]

    Somera TS, Mazzola M. 2022. Toward a holistic view of orchard ecosystem dynamics: a comprehensive review of the multiple factors governing development or suppression of apple replant disease. Frontiers in Microbiology 13:949404

    doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2022.949404

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [3]

    Tewoldemedhin YT, Mazzola M, Labuschagne I, McLeod A. 2011. A multi-phasic approach reveals that apple replant disease is caused by multiple biological agents, with some agents acting synergistically. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 43:1917−27

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2011.05.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [4]

    Rumberger A, Merwin IA, Thies JE. 2007. Microbial community development in the rhizosphere of apple trees at a replant disease site. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39:1645−54

    doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.01.023

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [5]

    Wang G, Yin C, Pan F, Wang X, Xiang L, et al. 2018. Analysis of the fungal community in apple replanted soil around Bohai Gulf. Horticultural Plant Journal 4:175−81

    doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2018.05.003

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [6]

    Liu X, Xu S, Wang X, Xin L, Wang L, et al. 2022. MdBAK1 overexpression in apple enhanced resistance to replant disease as well as to the causative pathogen Fusarium oxysporum. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 179:144−57

    doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2022.03.014

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [7]

    Yin C, Xiang L, Wang G, Wang Y, Shen X, et al. 2017. Phloridzin promotes the growth of Fusarium moniliforme (Fusarium verticillioides). Scientia Horticulturae 214:187−94

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2016.11.035

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [8]

    Xiang L, Wang M, Pan F, Wang G, Jiang W, et al. 2021. Transcriptome analysis Malus domestica 'M9T337' root molecular responses to Fusarium solani infection. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 113:101567

    doi: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2020.101567

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [9]

    Wang H, Zhao L, Jiang W, Zhang R, Chen R, et al. 2021. Effects of Allium fistulosum-Brassica juncea-Triticum aestivum rotation a year on the soil microbial environment and the subsequent growth of young apple trees. Scientia Horticulturae 290:110549

    doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2021.110549

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [10]

    Manici LM, Kelderer M, Caputo F, Nicoletti F, De Luca Picione F, et al. 2015. Impact of cover crop in pre-plant of apple orchards: relationship between crop health, root inhabiting fungi and rhizospheric bacteria. Canadian Journal of Plant Science 95:947−58

    doi: 10.4141/cjps-2015-013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [11]

    Mazzola M, Hewavitharana SS, Strauss SL. 2015. Brassica seed meal soil amendments transform the rhizosphere microbiome and improve apple production through resistance to pathogen reinfestation. Phytopathology 105:460−69

    doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-09-14-0247-R

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [12]

    Chen R, Jiang W, Wang H, Pan F, Fan H, et al. 2021. Effects of different fumigants on the replanted soil environment and growth of Malus hupehensis Rehd. seedlings. HortScience 56:491−99

    doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI15660-20

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [13]

    Jiang W, Chen R, Zhao L, Qin L, Fan H, et al. 2022. Chemical fumigants control apple replant disease: microbial community structure-mediated inhibition of Fusarium and degradation of phenolic acids. Journal of Hazardous Materials 440:129786

    doi: 10.1016/j.jhazmat.2022.129786

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [14]

    Jones JDG, Dangl JL. 2006. The plant immune system. Nature 444:323−29

    doi: 10.1038/nature05286

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [15]

    Zasada IA, Halbrendt JM, Kokalis-Burelle N, LaMondia J, McKenry MV, et al. 2010. Managing nematodes without methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 48:311−28

    doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114425

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [16]

    Park MG, Lee BH, Yang JO, Kim BS, Roh GH, et al. 2021. Ethyl formate as a methyl bromide alternative for fumigation of citrus: efficacy, fruit quality, and workplace safety. Journal of Economic Entomology 114(6):2290−96

    doi: 10.1093/jee/toab175

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [17]

    Martin FN. 2003. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Annual Review of Phytopathology 41:325−50

    doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095514

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [18]

    Lahlali R, Ezrari S, Radouane N, Kenfaoui J, Esmaeel Q, et al. 2022. Biological control of plant pathogens: a global perspective. Microorganisms 10:596

    doi: 10.3390/microorganisms10030596

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [19]

    Jiang W, Chen R, Zhao L, Duan Y, Wang H, et al. 2023. Isolation of phloridzin-degrading, IAA-producing bacterium Ochrobactrum haematophilum and its effects on the apple replant soil environment. Horticultural Plant Journal 9(2):199−208

    doi: 10.1016/j.hpj.2022.08.010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [20]

    Hirsch M, Burges PL, Migueliz L, Villarreal NM, Marina M. 2024. Isolation of beneficial bacteria from strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa, Duch). Potentialities for fungal disease control and plant growth promotion. Plant Growth Regulation 102:135−52

    doi: 10.1007/s10725-023-00989-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [21]

    Berendsen RL, Vismans G, Yu K, Song Y, de Jonge R, et al. 2018. Disease-induced assemblage of a plant-beneficial bacterial consortium. The ISME Journal 12:1496−507

    doi: 10.1038/s41396-018-0093-1

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [22]

    Yang Y, Shah J, Klessig DF. 1997. Signal perception and transduction in plant defense responses. Genes & Development 11:1621−39

    doi: 10.1101/gad.11.13.1621

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [23]

    Manzoor MA, Xu Y, Lv Z, Xu J, Wang Y, et al. 2023. Fruit crop abiotic stress management: a comprehensive review of plant hormones mediated responses. Fruit Research 3:30

    doi: 10.48130/FruRes-2023-0030

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [24]

    Wu W, Fu P, Lu J. 2022. Grapevine WRKY transcription factors. Fruit Research 2:10

    doi: 10.48130/FruRes-2022-0010

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [25]

    Zhang K, Liu F, Wang Z, Zhuo C, Hu K, et al. 2022. Transcription factor WRKY28 curbs WRKY33-mediated resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum in Brassica napus. Plant Physiology 190:2757−74

    doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiac439

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [26]

    Abbruscato P, Nepusz T, Mizzi L, Del Corvo M, Morandini P, et al. 2012. OsWRKY22, a monocot WRKY gene, plays a role in the resistance response to blast. Molecular Plant Pathology 13:828−41

    doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2012.00795.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [27]

    Zheng Z, Qamar SA, Chen Z, Mengiste T. 2006. Arabidopsis WRKY33 transcription factor is required for resistance to necrotrophic fungal pathogens. The Plant Journal 48:592−605

    doi: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2006.02901.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [28]

    Yang Y, Zhou Y, Chi Y, Fan B, Chen Z. 2017. Characterization of soybean WRKY gene family and identification of soybean WRKY genes that promote resistance to soybean cyst nematode. Scientific Reports 7:17804

    doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-18235-8

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [29]

    Dang F, Wang Y, Yu L, Eulgem T, Lai Y, et al. 2013. CaWRKY40, a WRKY protein of pepper, plays an important role in the regulation of tolerance to heat stress and resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum infection. Plant, Cell & Environment 36:757−74

    doi: 10.1111/pce.12011

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [30]

    Wang J, Tao F, Tian W, Guo Z, Chen X, et al. 2017. The wheat WRKY transcription factors TaWRKY49 and TaWRKY62 confer differential high-temperature seedling-plant resistance to Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici. PLoS One 12:e0181963

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0181963

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [31]

    Ferreira RB, Monteiro S, Freitas R, Santos CN, Chen Z, et al. 2007. The role of plant defence proteins in fungal pathogenesis. Molecular Plant Pathology 8:677−700

    doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2007.00419.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [32]

    Rogers EE, Ausubel FM. 1997. Arabidopsis enhanced disease susceptibility mutants exhibit enhanced susceptibility to several bacterial pathogens and alterations in PR-1 gene expression. The Plant Cell 9:305−16

    doi: 10.1105/tpc.9.3.305

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [33]

    Bonasera JM, Kim JF, Beer SV. 2006. PR genes of apple: identification and expression in response to elicitors and inoculation with Erwinia amylovora. BMC Plant Biology 6:23

    doi: 10.1186/1471-2229-6-23

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [34]

    Christensen AB, Cho BH, Næsby M, Gregersen PL, Brandt J, et al. 2002. The molecular characterization of two barley proteins establishes the novel PR-17 family of pathogenesis-related proteins. Molecular Plant Pathology 3:135−44

    doi: 10.1046/j.1364-3703.2002.00105.x

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [35]

    Zaynab M, Peng J, Sharif Y, Al-Yahyai R, Jamil A, et al. 2021. Expression profiling of pathogenesis-related Protein-1 (PR-1) genes from Solanum tuberosum reveals its critical role in phytophthora infestans infection. Microbial Pathogenesis 161:105290

    doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.105290

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [36]

    Oide S, Bejai S, Staal J, Guan N, Kaliff M, et al. 2013. A novel role of PR2 in abscisic acid (ABA) mediated, pathogen-induced callose deposition in Arabidopsis thaliana. New Phytologist 200:1187−99

    doi: 10.1111/nph.12436

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [37]

    Zhang Q, Xu C, Wei H, Fan W, Li T. 2021. Two pathogenesis-related proteins interact with leucine-rich repeat proteins to promote Alternaria leaf spot resistance in apple. Horticulture Research 8:219

    doi: 10.1038/s41438-021-00654-4

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [38]

    Zhou Z, Zhu Y, Tian Y, Yao J, Bian S, et al. 2021. MdPR4, a pathogenesis-related protein in apple, is involved in chitin recognition and resistance response to apple replant disease pathogens. Journal of Plant Physiology 260:153390

    doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2021.153390

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [39]

    Wang W, Nie J, Lv L, Gong W, Wang S, et al. 2021. A Valsa mali effector protein 1 targets apple (Malus domestica) pathogenesis-related 10 protein to promote virulence. Frontiers in Plant Science 12:741342

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.741342

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [40]

    Livak KJ, Schmittgen TD. 2001. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−ΔΔCᴛ method. Methods 25:402−08

    doi: 10.1006/meth.2001.1262

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [41]

    Zhang X, Henriques R, Lin SS, Niu QW, Chua NH. 2006. Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of Arabidopsis thaliana using the floral dip method. Nature Protocols 1(2):641−46

    doi: 10.1038/nprot.2006.97

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [42]

    Xiang L. 2021. Apple replant disease key factor in old orchards and mechanism of rootstock response to its infection. Thesis. Shandong Agricultural University, China. pp. 51−55

    [43]

    Xiang L, Zhao L, Wang M, Huang J, Chen X, et al. 2021. Physiological responses of apple rootstock M.9 to infection by Fusarium solani. HortScience 56:1104−11

    doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI15945-21

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [44]

    Chen L, Song Y, Li S, Zhang L, Zou C, et al. 2012. The role of WRKY transcription factors in plant abiotic stresses. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Gene Regulatory Mechanisms 1819:120−28

    doi: 10.1016/j.bbagrm.2011.09.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [45]

    Wang A, Wang L, Liu K, Liang K, Yang S, et al. 2022. Comparative transcriptome profiling reveals the defense pathways and mechanisms in the leaves and roots of blueberry to drought stress. Fruit Research 2:18

    doi: 10.48130/FruRes-2022-0018

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [46]

    Li S, Chen H, Yu H, Li Y, Wang L. 2023. Responses and adaptations of fruit trees to high temperatures. Fruit Research 3:23

    doi: 10.48130/FruRes-2023-0023

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [47]

    Liu Z, Ma Z, Li J, Bian N, Guo Z, et al. 2023. Interfering small ubiquitin modifiers (SUMO) exhibits apple's enhanced tolerance to nitrogen deficiency. Fruit Research 3:24

    doi: 10.48130/FruRes-2023-0024

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [48]

    Liu F, Li X, Wang M, Wen J, Yi B, et al. 2018. Interactions of WRKY15 and WRKY33 transcription factors and their roles in the resistance of oilseed rape to Sclerotinia infection. Plant Biotechnology Journal 16:911−25

    doi: 10.1111/pbi.12838

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [49]

    Cheng X, Zhao Y, Jiang Q, Yang J, Zhao W, et al. 2019. Structural basis of dimerization and dual W-box DNA recognition by rice WRKY domain. Nucleic Acids Research 47:4308−18

    doi: 10.1093/nar/gkz113

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [50]

    Eulgem T, Rushton PJ, Robatzek S, Somssich IE. 2000. The WRKY superfamily of plant transcription factors. Trends in Plant Science 5:199−206

    doi: 10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01600-9

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [51]

    Li J, Zhong R, Palva ET. 2017. WRKY70 and its homolog WRKY54 negatively modulate the cell wall-associated defenses to necrotrophic pathogens in Arabidopsis. PLoS One 12:e0183731

    doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183731

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [52]

    Chen YL, Lin FW, Cheng KT, Chang CH, Hung SC, et al. 2023. XCP1 cleaves Pathogenesis-related protein 1 into CAPE9 for systemic immunity in Arabidopsis. Nature Communications 14:4697

    doi: 10.1038/s41467-023-40406-7

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [53]

    Luo X, Tian T, Feng L, Yang X, Li L, et al. 2023. Pathogenesis-related protein 1 suppresses oomycete pathogen by targeting against AMPK kinase complex. Journal of Advanced Research 43:13−26

    doi: 10.1016/j.jare.2022.02.002

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [54]

    Kalde M, Nühse TS, Findlay K, Peck SC. 2007. The syntaxin SYP132 contributes to plant resistance against bacteria and secretion of pathogenesis-related protein 1. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104:11850−55

    doi: 10.1073/pnas.0701083104

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [55]

    Breen S, Williams SJ, Outram M, Kobe B, Solomon PS. 2017. Emerging insights into the functions of pathogenesis-related protein 1. Trends in Plant Science 22:871−79

    doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.06.013

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [56]

    Feki K, Tounsi S, Jemli S, Boubakri H, Saidi MN, et al. 2024. Genome-wide identification of PR10 family members and expression profile analysis of PvPR10 in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in response to hormones and several abiotic stress conditions. Plant Growth Regulation 102:279−95

    doi: 10.1007/s10725-023-00997-z

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [57]

    Qi J, Song CP, Wang B, Zhou J, Kangasjärvi J, et al. 2018. Reactive oxygen species signaling and stomatal movement in plant responses to drought stress and pathogen attack. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 60:805−26

    doi: 10.1111/jipb.12654

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [58]

    Castro B, Citterico M, Kimura S, Stevens DM, Wrzaczek M, et al. 2021. Stress-induced reactive oxygen species compartmentalization, perception and signalling. Nature Plants 7(4):403−12

    doi: 10.1038/s41477-021-00887-0

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [59]

    Mittler R, Zandalinas SI, Fichman Y, Van Breusegem F. 2022. Reactive oxygen species signalling in plant stress responses. Nature Reviews Molecular Cell Biology 23:663−79

    doi: 10.1038/s41580-022-00499-2

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [60]

    Dat J, Vandenabeele S, Vranová E, Van Montagu M, Inzé D, et al. 2000. Dual action of the active oxygen species during plant stress responses. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences CMLS 57:779−95

    doi: 10.1007/s000180050041

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

    [61]

    Deng Q, Wu J, Chen J, Shen W. 2020. Physiological mechanisms of improved smut resistance in sugarcane through application of silicon. Frontiers in Plant Science 11:568130

    doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.568130

    CrossRef   Google Scholar

  • Cite this article

    Zhao L, Liu Y, Wang M, Xiang L, Wang H, et al. 2025. MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani. Fruit Research 5: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0024-0033
    Zhao L, Liu Y, Wang M, Xiang L, Wang H, et al. 2025. MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani. Fruit Research 5: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0024-0033

Figures(7)

Article Metrics

Article views(969) PDF downloads(202)

ARTICLE   Open Access    

MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani

Fruit Research  5 Article number: e001  (2025)  |  Cite this article

Abstract: Apple replant disease (ARD) caused by the pathogen Fusarium solani is a destructive disease in apple planting areas worldwide, which leads to the decline of apple quality and yield. WRKY transcription factors are involved in the process of plants responding to various environmental stresses, but the function of WRKY TFs in ARD is unclear. In this study, the expression of MdWRKY20 was significantly increased after infection of apple rootstock 'M9T337' with F. solani. Transgenic analysis showed that the resistance of apple callus and Arabidopsis to F. solani increased after overexpression of MdWRKY20. Ectopic expression of MdWRKY20 also significantly enhanced antioxidant capacity in Arabidopsis under treatment with F. solani. Then, MdWRKY20 was found to bind directly to the W-box II of the MdPR1 promoter and significantly promoted its expression. In summary, MdWRKY20 plays a positive role in regulating the resistance of apples to F. solani.

    • There is a widespread agricultural problem worldwide, after replanting apples in the same land, abnormal tree growth and development, as well as decreased yield and fruit quality are observed, which is called apple replant disease (ARD)[1,2]. The most universal symptoms of ARD are stunted growth of sapling, damaged root systems, reduced both in yield and fruit quality[3,4], which has greatly affected the development of the apple industry. Therefore, it is particularly important to find an effective method to alleviate ARD.

      ARD can be caused by many factors, among which biological factors dominated by harmful fungi in soil hold a major position[58]. Fusarium solani has been proven to be one of the main pathogens causing ARD in the main production areas of China. Scholars at home and abroad have put forward a variety of preventions and control measures to deal with ARD. Intercropping and crop rotation could alleviate ARD to varying degrees[911], crop rotation has been proven to improve the soil environment and effectively reduce the incidence of plants, but it is difficult implement in production as it is time consuming. Chemical fumigants such as methyl bromide have been shown to be highly effective against preventing and alleviating ARD[12,13], but they have been banned due to the serious effects of environmental pollution and ozone destruction[1416]. Biological control has become an essential means of agricultural sustainable development because it can regulate soil microecology by competing with pathogenic bacteria for ecological niche[1719]. However, biological control by antagonistic microorganisms needs continuous application because of the variety and long-term existence of pathogenic fungi in soil. Therefore, it is difficult to completely eliminate ARD through biological control[20]. Consequently, it is a new breakthrough point to explore the molecular mechanism of apple defense against F. solani.

      A variety of abiotic and biological challenges occur at the same time, which puzzles the prevention and control of ARD. External unfavorable factors will trigger the inherent defense mechanism of plants[21,22]. In this process, transcription factor (TF) plays an important role. WRKY transcription factors regulated the expression of defense-related genes by combining 'W-box' sites in the promoter region of the target gene, and has been widely studied as a key regulator in the immune response from plants to various biological stresses[2325]. AtWRKY33 can act as a positive regulator of JA- and ET-mediated defense response signals to mediate plant defense against necrotic pathogens Botrytis cinerea and Alternaria brassicicola[26]. Overexpression of GmWRKY136, 53, and 86 in soybean respectively showed increased resistance to soybean cyst nematode[27]. In tobacco, CaWRKY40 homologous gene was regulated by SA, JA, and ET signaling pathways, and coordinated the response to pepper and tobacco to R. solanacearum infection and heat stress[28]. By regulating the signal transduction mediated by SA, JA, ET, and ROS, it was found that TaWRKY49 negatively regulated the high-temperature seedling-plant resistance to Pst (HTSP) of wheat[29].

      Pathogenesis-Related proteins (PRs) have been proven to participate in plant defense responses[3032]. Studies showed that Pathogenesis-Related (PR) proteins can be divided into 17 families[33]. PRs have been identified to play a critical role in many plant species. In addition, StPR-1 has been shown to play a positive role in the infection of potato Phytophthora infestans[34]. PR2 in Arabidopsis may act as a regulator of callose and SA-dependent defense responses[35]. In apple, MdPR10-1 and MdPR10-2 were found to be related to resistance to Alternaria leaf spot[36]. Apple Pathogenesis-Related protein MdPR4 has been shown to be involved in the recognition of chitin and resistance to ARD pathogens[37]. Overexpression of MdPR10 significantly reduced the infection of Valsa mali, which is the main pathogen causing apple rot[38].

      In apple, it is unknown whether the WRKY transcription factor mediates plant defense mechanisms against F. solani. In this study, the infection of F. solani increased the expression of MdWRKY20 in the root of 'M9T337', so MdWRKY20 was chosen as the research target. The purpose is to analyze the function of MdWRKY20 and its regulation mode under the infection of F. solani. Therefore, we have carried out genetic, biochemical, and physiological analysis to provide new ideas for apple to defend against F. solani and cultivate resistant rootstocks.

    • The experimental materials included tissue culture seedlings of apple (Malus domestica Borkh rootstock M9T337 with consistent growth state), and the apple callus of 'Orin' was used for pathogen infection test, cultured in subculture medium. Subculture medium: MS, 30 g/L sucrose, 1.5 mg/L 6-benzyladenine (6-BA), 0.5 mg/L 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D) and 7 g/L agar, pH 5.8. Selection medium: MS, 30 g/L sucrose, 1.5 mg/L 6-BA,0.5 mg/L 2,4-D, 50 μg/mL kanamycin, and 7 g/L agar, pH 5.8, and the medium was placed at 24 °C in darkness.

      Seedlings of Arabidopsis Columbia (Col-0) were used for genetic transformation tests and were cultured on MS medium: MS, 30 g/L sucrose pH 5.8. Screening medium: MS, 30 g/L sucrose, 50 μg/mL kanamycin pH = 5.8. Seeds were vernalized at 4 °C for 2 d before growth at 23 °C under 16 h light/8 h dark conditions. After taking root in the culture medium, Arabidopsis was transplanted into nutrient medium (the volume ratio of vermiculite to nutrient soil was 1:1), and grew under the condition of 14 h light/10 h dark cycle, the temperature was 22 °C and the relative humidity was 60%. Nicotiana benthamiana was used in subcellular localization, and it was cultivated and grown under the conditions of 14 h light/10 h dark cycle, with a temperature of 24 °C and relative humidity of 60%.

      F. solani was activated in potato dextrose agar (PDA) for 5 d at 28 °C, then the callus were infected with 0.5 cm diameter agar on which hyphae grew evenly. PDA medium without F. solani inoculation was treated as a control.

      The activated F. solani was washed with sterile water to prepare spore suspension with a concentration of 105 CFU/mL, then added to PDB culture medium at a ratio of 1%, then cultured at 28 °C and 160 r/min for about 7 d. After filtering through 8-layer gauze, the spore suspension concentration was calculated using a blood cell counting plate, and the final concentration was adjusted to 105 cells/mL by adding sterile water. Fifty mL spore suspension was added to the nutrient solution, then it was poured into the 'M9T337' seedlings, and the same amount of sterile water was added to the control. The seedlings were cultured in the greenhouse, and the root samples were taken on the 0, 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 d after inoculation, and then frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C.

      The flower, fruit, stem, leaf, and root tissues of apple were collected under natural planting conditions and stored at −80 °C for the expression analysis of MdWRKY20.

    • 1% (v/v) of the target concentration of F. solani spore suspension was added to PDB medium, at 28 °C and 160 r/min for about 7 d. Spore suspension filtered with 8-layer gauze, then centrifuged at 12,000 r/min for 10 min, and the collected supernatant was mixed with ethyl acetate at 1:1 for extraction. Shaking it violently three times during this process, and then allowing it to stand until layered. The bottom liquid was collected after layering and excess water absorbed with anhydrous sodium sulfate, then concentrated in a rotary evaporator (36 °C, 80 hPa) to a powder state, and the collected powder was dissolved with methanol, and finally the concentration of fermentation broth extract was 5 mg/mL. Centrifuged at 10,000 r/min and filtered with 0.22 μm filter membrane to remove impurities, and then stored at −80 °C.

      Zero, six and 12 mL of fermentation broth extract was added into 300 mL of MS medium and diluted to 0, 100, and 200 mg/L respectively. After disinfection of Arabidopsis, the seeds were planted in solidified MS solid culture medium, then sealed with sealing film, Arabidopsis was cultured according to the method mentioned above.

    • FastPure Plant Total RNA Isolation Kit (Vazyme, Nanjing, China) was employed to extract total RNA from the tissues of 'M9T337' and the callus of the apple. Then, the RNA was reverse transcripted into cDNA using HiScript III 1st Strand cDNA Synthesis Kit (Vazyme, Nanjing, China), and according to the concentration, 1 pg–1 μg total RNA was extracted for reverse transcription. The qRT-qPCR amplification reactions were performed using Taq Pro Universal SYBR qPCR Master Mix (Vazyme, Nanjin, China), and qRT-PCR was then performed on a Real-Time system (Bio-Rad, Hercules, CA, USA). Each sample was repeated three times, normalized with MdActin (CN938023) as an internal control, and the relative quantification of genes were calculated by the cycle threshold (Ct) 2−ΔΔCᴛ method[39]. Primers used for qRT-PCR analysis are listed in Supplementary Table S1.

    • PCR-amplification (P515, Vazyme, Jiangsu, China) was used to amplify the coding sequence (CDs) of MdWRKY20 from apple leaves. Primers used for cloning CDs are listed in Supplementary Table S1. Using MEGA version 5.1 software to plot the phylogenetic tree, the WRKY20 sequence of apple and other species were derived from the NCBI database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov). The phylogenetic tree was created by the adjacency method, and the phylogenetic tree was beautified using the online software ITOL (https://itol.embl.de/). DNAMAN (Lynnon Biosoft, San Ramon, CA, USA) software was used to compare protein sequences.

    • The sull-length cDNAs without the stop codon of MdWRKY20 was introduced into the pRI101-GFP vector, and a 35S::MdWRKY20-GFP fusion vector was generated. The primer sequence is listed in Supplementary Table S1. The fusion vectors and empty plasmid were then introduced into Agrobacterium tumefaciens strain GV3101 and then infiltrated into tobacco leaves. After 2–3 d of infiltration, the GFP signal was observed using confocal microscopy.

    • One mg/L DAB solution and 0.5 mg/mL NBT solution were prepared with 0.01 mmol/L phosphate buffer solution (pH 7.0). After the growth of Arabidopsis for about 28 d, leaves with the same growth status were selected and placed in a centrifuge tube, which were dyed with DAB solution for 6 h and NBT solution for 2 h. Incubated at a constant temperature of 28 °C. Then, the leaves were decolored in 95% alcohol, boiled until chlorophyll was completely degraded, observed and photos taken.

    • Two vectors were used for Y1H assay, the MdWRKY20 CDs was inserted into pGADT7 vector (Clontech, TaKaRa, Japan), while the promoter fragments of MdPR1 and MdPR3 were inserted into the pHIS2 vector (BD Biosciences, NJ, China). Then the recombinant plasmids and PGADT7 empty vector were transferred into Y187 (Clontech) yeast cells. The transformed cells were cultured on screening medium (-Trp/-His) with different concentrations of 3-amino-1,2,4-triazole (3-AT) and cultured at 28 °C for about 2–3 d to select the optimal concentration. Compared with the negative control, the binding of MdWRKY20 protein to the MdPR1 promoter enables yeast strains to grow normally under conditions containing appropriate concentrations of 3-AT, while yeast containing PGADT7 empty vector cannot grow normally. Then co-transfect the recombinant plasmid containing pHIS2 and pGADT7 of the target gene. The transformed cells were cultured on deficient medium (-Trp/-His/-Leu) containing optimal 3-AT concentration, and cultured at 28 °C for about 2–3 d. Determining the binding ability of transcription factors to promoters based on yeast growth.

    • The LightShift Chemiluminescent EMSA Kit (Thermo Scientific) was used for EMSA assay. Biotin-labeled probe primers and non-biotin labeled competitive probes were synthesized by Sangon Biotechnology (Shanghai, China) (Supplementary Table S1). Insert the MdWRKY20 CDs sequence into the pET-32a(+) (His-Tag) expression vector (Novagen, NJ, USA). Express the MdWRKY20 recombinant protein in E.coli DE3 and purify the MdWRKY20-His fusion protein using the His tagged protein purification kit (Kangwei).

      The specific steps are as follows: the reaction mixture contains probe 1 μL, H2O 1 μL, LightShift 10× binding buffer 2 μL and purified protein 16 μL. The mixture was kept in the dark at 24 °C for 25 min, after adding loading buffer and mixing, nondenaturing polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis was carried out, and then the DNA-protein complex was transferred to nylon membrane. Then perform UV crosslinking, with one minute on each side. The UV Crosslinker was used for UV crosslinking, with one minute on each side. Chemiluminescence signal detection was performed using the reagents provided in the kit.

    • The CDs of MdWRKY20 was inserted into pHBT AvrRpm 1 vector, and the the promoter of MdPR1 and MdPR3 were inserted into pFRK1-LUC-nos vector, respectively. After the protoplasts of 'Orin' callus tissue were extracted, co-transform two plasmids into apple callus protoplasts. The transiently transfected protoplasts were incubated at 24 °C for 6 h and suspended in 100 μL cell lysis buffer. Added 5 μL cell extract and 20 μL 1 mM 4-MUG and cultured at 37 °C for 1 h. Then added 100 μL 0.2 mol/L sodium carbonate to terminate the reaction. Luciferase reporter analysis system (Promega) was used to determine LUC activity.

    • Insert the full-length MdWRKY20 CDs into pRI101-AN vector containing a GFP tag. Primers are listed in Supplementary Table S1. Then transfer the recombinant plasmid into Agrobacterium LBA4404 (AngYuBio, Shanghai, China) cells, and two-week-old 'Orin' callus were infected in the infection solution for about 30 min. Dry the callus with filter paper then cultured them at 24 °C for 2 d in darkness on agar-solidified MS medium without antibiotics, then transferred to selective medium containing 250 mg/L carbenicillin and 50 mg/L kanamycin. PCR amplification was used to verify overexpression of MdWRKY20.

      In the transformation of Arabidopsis, the recombinant plasmid was introduced into the Arabidopsis using floral dip method[40] mediated by Agrobacterium LBA3101 (AngYuBio, Shanghai, China). After harvesting Arabidopsis seeds, the positive overexpression lines were screened with agar-solidified MS medium containing 50 mg/L kanamycin, the overexpression of MdWRKY20 was verified by PCR amplification, the T3 homozygous transgenic lines were used for subsequent phenotypic analysis.

    • At least three replicates were set for each experiment to ensure accuracy, and SPSS version 20.0 (IBM, Inc, Armonk, NY, USA) was used for statistical analysis. The results were compared by one-way ANOVA and Duncan test. Using GraphPad Prism version 9 (San Diego, CA, USA) for graph analysis, and p < 0.05 was statistically significant.

    • Apple rootstock 'M9T337' was infected by F. solani. Visible symptoms can be seen that the slow growth and partial browning of leaves appeared after 9 d post-infection (dpi) (Fig. 1a). On 12 dpi, the infection rate was as high as 92.5% and the mortality rate reached 37.5% (Supplementary Fig. S1). Eight WRKY family target genes were selected for transcriptional analysis according to previous research results[41]. The transcription of WRKY-TFs was induced by F. solani to different degrees (Fig. 2bi). The infection of F. solani induced the expression of MdWRKY2/4/20/25 and inhibited the expression of MdWRKY10/33/58, but had no obvious relationship with the transcription of MdWRKY44. Among them, it was found that the transcription level of MdWRKY20 changed most significantly. Therefore, it was speculated that the transcription of MdWRKY20 may correspond to the infection of F. solani.

      Figure 1. 

      Response of apple rootstock 'M9T337' to F. solani infection and expression levels of MdWRKY-TFs after F. solani infection detected by qRT-PCR. (a) Images of 'M9T337' taken on the 3, 6, 9 and 12 dpi after infection by F. solani. Scale bar = 5 cm. (b)–(i) qRT-PCR was used to detect the expression level of MdWRKY2, MdWRKY4, MdWRKY10, MdWRKY20, MdWRKY25, MdWRKY33, MdWRKY44, MdWRKY58. For (b)–(i), values were means ± s.d. of three independent biological replicates. Bars not labeled with same letters in each panel indicate values are significantly different at p < 0.05, based on one-way ANOVA and Duncan's tests.

      Figure 2. 

      Phylogenetic analysis and subcellular localization analysis of MdWRKY20. (a) Phylogenetic relationship and subgroup classification of MdWRKY20, AtWRKY, and other Group I WRKYs proteins. The WRKY20 sequence of apple and other species was derived from NCBI database (www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov), and the WRKY protein sequence of Arabidopsis was derived from TAIR database (www.arabidopsis.org). The phylogenetic tree was created using MEGA software (version 5.1) by the adjacency method. MdWRKY20 is highlighted with black circles in the figure. (b) 35S::MdWRKY20-GFP vectors were transformed into the leaves of Nicotiana benthamiana. The nucleus were labeled with red fluorescent protein H2B. Three biological repeats were performed. Scale bar = 50 μm.

    • MdWRKY20 was expressed in every tissue of apple, with the highest expression in root and fruit (Supplementary Fig. S2). To examine the evolutionary relationship of MdWRKY20, the phylogenetic tree was generated by using the full-length amino acid sequences of Arabidopsis WRKYs and various species of Group I WRKYs (Fig. 2a). MdWRKY20 belongs to group 1, along with several other Group I WRKY20 proteins. The subcellular localization results showed that green fluorescence could be observed throughout the whole cell in the empty GFP, whereas the green fluorescence of MdWRKY20-GFP was confined to the nucleus (Fig. 2b).

    • Recombinant pRI101-AN vector carrying MdWRKY20 was transformed into 'Orin' apple callus, and the callus tissue overexpressing MdWRKY20 obtained (Fig. 3a). Compared with the wild type (WT), it was observed that fungal elongation of the strain in MdWRKY20-OE callus were significantly reduced four days after inoculation with F. solani (Fig. 3b), and the diameter of the plaque extension decreased by 56.32%. The expression of MdWRKY20 in transgenic callus were significantly higher than WT (Fig. 3c). This result indicates that MdWRKY20 has a positive effect in the response of apple callus to F. solani infection.

      Figure 3. 

      Functional characteristics of 'Orin' callus overexpressing MdWRKY20. (a) MdWRKY20 CDs was inserted into PRI101-AN vector with CaMV 35S promoter and green fluorescent protein (GFP) sequence. (b) Phenotype of wild type (WT) and MdWRKY20-OE callus 4 d after the infection of F. solani. (c) RT-PCR based validation of MdWRKY20-OE in 'Orin' callus. (d) The diameter of the plaque extension of different callus after infection with F. solani. (c), (d), Values are means ± s.d. of three independent biological replicates. Bars not labeled with the same letters in each panel indicate values are significantly different at p < 0.05, based on one-way ANOVA and Duncan's tests.

    • To further investigate the mechanism by which MdWRKY20 and PRs enhance the tolerance of apple callus to F. solani, the expression levels of PR genes in apple callus overexpressing MdWRKY20 and WT were measured after 7 d of inoculation with F. solani. It was found that there was no significant change in the expression of MdPR2, MdPR3, and MdPR4 in the MdWRKY20-OE lines, but the expression of MdPR1 was significantly higher than that in WT under stress conditions (Fig. 4ad). Therefore, the results indicated that MdWRKY20 may play a role by positively activating the expression level of MdPR1.

      Figure 4. 

      qRT–PCR analysis of MdPR1, MdPR2, MdPR3, and MdPR4 expressions in MdWRKY20-OE and wild type apple callus with F. solani infection. Values are means ± s.d. of three independent biological replicates. Bars not labeled with the same letters in each panel indicate values are significantly different at p < 0.05, based on one-way ANOVA and Duncan's tests.

    • To verify the specificity of MdWRKY20 binding to the promoters of MdPR1 after F. solani infection, Y1H assay was carried out. It was found that MdWRKY20 interacted with the MdPR1 promoter, which was screened at a suitable 3-AT concentration of 100 mM (Fig. 5a). By analyzing the cis-acting elements in the promoter sequences, it was found that there are two speculated W-box motifs in the MdPR1 promoter (Fig. 5c). Therefore, EMSA demonstrated that MdWRKY20 could bind to the W-box II motif in the promoter of MdPR1 (Fig. 5d). With the increase of cold probe concentration, the binding between MdWRKY20 to the MdPR1 promoter was weakened (Fig. 5d). To further explore the effect of MdWRKY20 on the activity of the MdPR1 promoter, LUC activity assay was performed, and the results showed that MdWRKY20 has transactivation activity towards the MdPR1 promoter (Fig. 5e).

      Figure 5. 

      MdWRKY20 binds to the MdPR1 promoter. (a) The optimal 3-AT concentration was determined by cloning proMdPR1 into the pHIS2 vector. (b) MdWRKY20 interacted with MdPR1 promoter fragments as per the Y1H assay. (c) The W-box I and W-box II elements were used in the EMSA. (d) EMSA analysis revealed that MdWRKY20 binds to the W-box II of the MdPR1 promoter (e) Luciferase reporter (LUC) assays showed the MdWRKY20-mediated activation of proMdPR1.

    • To further explore the function of MdWRKY20, the expression vector was constructed to transform Arabidopsis and obtained MdWRKY20-OE Arabidopsis (Supplementary Fig. S3). Inoculate Arabidopsis on MS medium, which contains extracts of fermentation broth extract of F. solani with concentrations of 0, 100, and 200 mg/L, and observe the phenotype of Arabidopsis after 7 d. It could be seen that the growth of Arabidopsis were uniform and flourishing under control conditions. Under the treatment of F. solani, the growth of Arabidopsis were inhibited to varying degrees. When the concentration of extracts of fermentation broth extract of F. solani is 100 mg/L, the growth of Col were significantly inhibited, while plants overexpressing MdWRKY20 were less inhibited (Fig. 6d). When the concentration of extracts of fermentation broth extract of F. solani reached 200 mg/L, the germination rate of Col seed decreased and the growth rate slowed down and the leaves turned purple (Supplementary Fig. S4), while the transgenic lines showed better tolerance, mainly reflected in more lush leaves and healthier growth state (Fig. 6f). By contrast, the MdWRKY20-OE lines showed better resistance to F. solani infection.

      Figure 6. 

      Germination percentage and phenotypic analysis of Arabidopsis under control and F. solani treatment. The germination rates of Arabidopsis seeds treated with (a) 0 mg/L , (b) 100 mg/L, and (c) 200 mg/L fermentation extract of F. solani. The phenotype of Arabidopsis was recorded by taking photos on the (d)−(f) 7 dpi, and (g) 21 dpi treated with (d) 0 mg/L, (e) 100 mg/L, and (f) 200 mg/L fermentation extract of F. solani. For (d)–(f) bars = 2 cm. (h) Root length of Arabidopsis after 7 d of treatment with control and F. solani. (i) Fresh weight of Arabidopsis after 7 d of treatment with control and F. solani. * 0.01 ≤ p < 0.05, ** 0.001 < p ≤ 0.01.

    • Further, the ROS level, antioxidant enzyme activity and MDA content of Arabidopsis leaves under control and F. solani treatment were detected (Fig. 7). The results showed that under control conditions, there were no significant differences in MDA content, ROS levels, and antioxidant enzyme activity among transgenic Arabidopsis and Col. However, after treatment with F. solani, the ROS level and MDA content of MdWRKY20-OE Arabidopsis were significantly lower than Col, and the antioxidant enzyme activities were significantly higher than that of Col (Fig. 7af). The results of histochemical staining showed that, unlike Col, the accumulation of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) and superoxide radical (O2) in MdWRKY20-OE lines were lower, which showed that transgenic plants had better antioxidant capacity (Fig. 7g, h).

      Figure 7. 

      Effects of F. solani treatment on several parameters of Arabidopsis leaves. The influence of F. solani treatment on (a), (b) active oxygen levels, (c)−(e) the activity of antioxidant enzymes, and (f) the content of malondialdehyde in Arabidopsis leaves. The (g) NBT staining, and (h) DAB staining of Arabidopsis leaves. For (a)–(f), values were means ± s.d. of three independent biological replicates. Bars not labeled with the same letters in each panel indicate values are significantly different at p < 0.05, based on one-way ANOVA and Duncan's tests. For (g) and (h), the deeper the color, the more content of O2 or H2O2 in plant tissues. Bars = 1 cm.

    • F. solani is a common plant pathogenic fungi, which has been proved to be one of the main pathogens causing ARD[42]. Replant disease is widespread in orchards worldwide. It is a disease based on the soil microbial community and harmful to plant physiology and morphological response, especially in Rosaceae plants. This disease frequently occurs in warm and humid environments, which causes great losses. Therefore, we are committed to finding a new method to effectively alleviate ARD.

      Various fluctuating abiotic environmental factors accompany the growth process of plants, such as drought, salinity, threshold temperatures, nutrient starvation, and so on[4346]. These factors may occur in many stages of plant growth and may limit the growth and development of plants, which has attracted wide attention because of the negative impact on agricultural production. Plants have their own strategies to deal with various stresses. They have evolved complex mechanisms at different levels to cope with the changing external environment.

      At the molecular level, transcription factors play a vital role in this process. WRKY transcription factors have been widely reported in immunity triggered by various microbial-related molecular patterns. For example, in Brassica napus, BnWRKY33 upregulates the expression of genes regulated by salicylic acid (SA) and jasmonic acid (JA), positively regulating resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum pathogens[47]. In addition, SpWRKY6 reduced cell membrane damage by regulating ROS level and expression level of PR genes[48]. In this study, it was found that the expression of MdWRKY20 was upregulated after infecting apple rootstocks with F. solani, indicating that MdWRKY20 may be related to apple rootstock's defense against F. solani infection, but the regulation mechanism of apple under F. solani infection needs to be further explored and supplemented.

      The DNA binding domain of WRKY protein can activate or inhibit its expression by binding to the W-box element of the target gene promoter[49]. In Arabidopsis, AtWRKY33 mediated resistance targets NCED3 and NCED5 directly[40]. In addition, the W-box element in the promoter of WRKY protein can also be targeted by other WRKY proteins. For example, the synergistic effect of WRKY70 and WRKY54 has a negative impact on the response of Arabidopsis to Pectobacterium carotovorum and Botrytis cinerea[50]. After the callus were inoculated with F. solani, it was observed that the diameter of plaque extension of the callus with overexpression of MdWRKY20 was obviously smaller than that of the wild type. Transgenic Arabidopsis also showed increased resistance. MdWRKY20 may exert its function by binding to the W-box of downstream target genes and activating its expression.

      Studies have shown that the PR gene was one of the most promising candidate genes for the cultivation of crop varieties resistant to multiple stresses[5153]. The overexpression of PR genes in plants alone or in combination greatly improved the level of plant defense response to various pathogens[14,54,55]. Under stress conditions, the expression of MdPR1 was significantly upregulated after overexpression of MdWRKY20 in apple callus compared with wild type. Based on the analysis of Y1H, EMSA, and LUC, we have confirmed that MdWRKY20 participate in the defense response to F. solani infection by promoting the expression of MdPR1.

      Active resistance refers to the host defense response caused by pathogen infection, and reactive oxygen species (ROS) burst is the earliest defense response produced by plants when pathogens invade[56]. Pathogen infection would unbalance ROS metabolism in plants and increase ROS production, and lead to the destruction of cell membrane structure[57]. In this study, after Arabidopsis were infected with F. solani, the H2O2 and O2 production rates in the leaves of Col were significantly increased, which were significantly higher than that in the MdWRKY20-OE lines. Appropriate increase of ROS plays an active role in plants' response to pathogen infection, but when ROS is excessive, it will lead to membrane lipid peroxidation, decreased enzyme activity, and cell metabolism disorders, which may eventually lead to the death of host cells[58,59]. Defense-related enzymes such as SOD, POD, and CAT could remove excessive ROS[60,61] from plant leaves. The present results showed that the contents of SOD, POD, and CAT in MdWRKY20-OE Arabidopsis leaves were significantly increased after F. solani infection, while the increase range of the Col were not significant. This may be due to the cell membrane damage of Col being severe, while transgenic lines could respond to the infection of F. solani, so their cell membrane damage was relatively light. The MDA content in leaves of Arabidopsis increased after infection with F. solani, but the MDA content in MdWRKY20-OE lines were significantly less than the Col, which also proved that the overexpression of MdWRKY20 had strong tolerance to F. solani infection.

    • In this study, MdWRKY20 was isolated from the apple rootstock 'M9T337' and its role in resisting F. solani infection reported. The plants with high expression of MdWRKY20 showed enhanced resistance to F. solani infection. MdWRKY20 promoted its expression by combining with the promoters of disease course related proteins MdPR1 to improve the resistance of plants, which was the positive regulatory factor for resistance of apple to F. solani. This work has provided a scientific basis for the prevention and control of ARD and can be used to introduce durable resistance to replant disease in apples.

      • This research was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 32072510), China Agriculture Research System of MOF and MARA (Grant No. CARS-27), Taishan Scholar Funded Project (No. ts20190923, No. tsqn202408119), Key RandD program of Shandong Province (Grant No. 2022TZXD0037), and the National Key Research and Development Program (Grant No. 2023YFD2301003).

      • The authors confirm contribution to the paper as follows: experiment design: Mao Z, Yin C; research performed: Zhao L, Liu Y, Wang M and Xiang L; data analysis: Wang H; manuscript preparation: Jiang H, Chen X. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

      • The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

      • The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

      • # Authors contributed equally: Lei Zhao, Yusong Liu

      • Copyright: © 2025 by the author(s). Published by Maximum Academic Press, Fayetteville, GA. This article is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
    Figure (7)  References (61)
  • About this article
    Cite this article
    Zhao L, Liu Y, Wang M, Xiang L, Wang H, et al. 2025. MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani. Fruit Research 5: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0024-0033
    Zhao L, Liu Y, Wang M, Xiang L, Wang H, et al. 2025. MdWRKY20-MdPR1 module mediates resistance of apple to Fusarium solani. Fruit Research 5: e001 doi: 10.48130/frures-0024-0033

Catalog

  • About this article

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return