Next Article in Journal
Mechanisms of Prostate Cancer Cells Survival and Their Therapeutic Targeting
Next Article in Special Issue
Insights into the Microbicidal, Antibiofilm, Antioxidant and Toxicity Profile of New O-Aryl-Carbamoyl-Oxymino-Fluorene Derivatives
Previous Article in Journal
Chromium Nanoparticles Together with a Switch Away from High-Fat/Low-Fiber Dietary Habits Enhances the Pro-Healthy Regulation of Liver Lipid Metabolism and Inflammation in Obese Rats
Previous Article in Special Issue
Antimicrobial Peptide Octominin-Encapsulated Chitosan Nanoparticles Enhanced Antifungal and Antibacterial Activities
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 24
Issue 3
10.3390/ijms24032941
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Molecular Analysis of MgO Nanoparticle-Induced Immunity against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato

by
Yushi Takehara
1,
Isamu Fijikawa
1,
Akihiro Watanabe
1,
Ayumi Yonemura
1,
Tomoyuki Kosaka
2,
Kosei Sakane
3,
Kiyoshi Imada
3,
Kazunori Sasaki
2,
Hiroshi Kajihara
4,
Shoji Sakai
5,
Yoichi Mizukami
6,
Muhammad Salman Haider
7,
Sudisha Jogaiah
8 and
Shin-ichi Ito
2,*
1
Graduate School of Sciences and Technology for Innovation, Yamaguchi University, Yamaguchi 753-8515, Yamaguchi, Japan
2
Research Center for Thermotolerant Microbial Resources (RCTMR), Yamaguchi University, Yamaguchi 753-8515, Yamaguchi, Japan
3
United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Tottori University, Tottori 680-8553, Tottori, Japan
4
Yamaguchi Prefectural Agriculture and Forestry General Engineering Center, 1-1-1 Ouchi-Hikami, Yamaguchi 753-0231, Yamaguchi, Japan
5
Yamaguchi TLO, 2-16-1 Tokiwadai, Ube 755-8611, Yamaguchi, Japan
6
Institute of Gene Research, Science Research Center, Yamaguchi University, 1-1-1 Minami-Kogushi, Ube 755-8505, Yamaguchi, Japan
7
Institute of Horticultural Sciences, University of Agriculture, Faisalabad 38000, Pakistan
8
Department of Environmental Science, Central University of Kerala, Tejaswini Hills, Kasaragod 671316, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24(3), 2941; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032941
Submission received: 24 December 2022 / Revised: 25 January 2023 / Accepted: 31 January 2023 / Published: 2 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Antimicrobial Materials and Nanoparticles)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fusarium wilt, caused by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (FOL), is a devastating soilborne disease in tomatoes. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO NPs) induce strong immunity against Fusarium wilt in tomatoes. However, the mechanisms underlying this immunity remain poorly understood. Comparative transcriptome analysis and microscopy of tomato roots were performed to determine the mechanism of MgO NP-induced immunity against FOL. Eight transcriptomes were prepared from tomato roots treated under eight different conditions. Differentially expressed genes were compared among the transcriptomes. The Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes enrichment analysis revealed that in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs, Rcr3 encoding apoplastic protease and RbohD encoding NADPH oxidase were upregulated when challenge-inoculated with FOL. The gene encoding glycine-rich protein 4 (SlGRP4) was chosen for further analysis. SlGRP4 was rapidly transcribed in roots pretreated with MgO NPs and inoculated with FOL. Immunomicroscopy analysis showed that SlGRP4 accumulated in the cell walls of epidermal and vascular vessel cells of roots pretreated with MgO NPs, but upon FOL inoculation, SlGRP4 further accumulated in the cell walls of cortical tissues within 48 h. The results provide new insights into the probable mechanisms of MgO NP-induced tomato immunity against Fusarium wilt.

1. Introduction

Global yield losses of important staple crops to pathogens and pests can reach 30%, with estimated costs to the global economy owing to lost food production in the hundreds of billions of dollars [1]. Therefore, control of plant diseases is an important and essential technology for staple crop production. Although various plant disease control technologies have been devised and developed, chemical fungicides are the most effective, labor-saving, and easy to use [2]. However, the large-scale use of chemical fungicides has caused problems that cannot be ignored, such as adverse effects on human health, emergence of fungicide-resistant microbes, burden on ecosystems, and food contamination owing to residual chemical fungicides [3]. Therefore, Integrated Pest Management (IPM), a pest management system that reduces the use of chemical fungicides by combining various pest control technologies to minimize risks to food and environmental safety, is being promoted internationally [4].
To accomplish IPM, it is important to develop pest control technologies other than chemical fungicides that have less impact on the environment. In this respect, the induction of disease resistance by plant immunity inducers, which suppress disease by activating the plant’s innate immune mechanism, is a promising disease control technology. In addition to their low environmental impact, plant immunity inducers have the advantage that there is almost no risk of the emergence of fungicide-resistant microbes, which is a problem with chemical fungicides [5]. Many plant immunity inducers, either chemically synthesized [5] or biologically derived [6], have been reported. Plant growth-promoting microorganisms (PGPR) found in the rhizosphere and root symbionts of plants are also known to induce plant immunity and have been applied in biocontrol [7].
Despite numerous reports, few plant immunity inducers have been put into practical use because of the large amount of time and expense required to develop plant immunity activators. In particular, there are very few plant immunity inducers developed and commercialized for vegetable diseases [8]. However, some known compounds and natural products, such as silicon [9] and chitosan [10], which are safe for humans and the environment, activate plant immunity. If these compounds can be applied for disease control, it would be advantageous for practical use because the development cost would be lower than that of new plant immunity activators. We found that magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO NPs), which are widely used as raw materials for fertilizers, soil conditioners, pharmaceuticals, and cosmetics, have an excellent plant immunity activation ability and have the potential to suppress bacterial wilt [11] and Fusarium wilt [12] in tomatoes.
Metal monoxides such as MgO NPs are known to produce reactive oxygen species (ROS) by interacting with biomolecules such as proteins, enzymes, and amino acids [13]. However, little is known about ROS production through interactions with plant-derived biomolecules. Imada et al. [11] showed that ROS are produced by the interaction of MgO NPs with plant polyphenols and speculated that the ROS generated in tomato roots treated with MgO NPs may be phenoxyl radicals produced by the deprotonation of phenolic hydroxyl radicals. In contrast, in Arabidopsis roots, ROS generation by MgO NPs has been suggested to involve NADPH oxidase (Rboh D), which acts in plant disease resistance responses [14].
MgO NPs are solid base catalysts of crystalline structured particles characterized by many edge/corner structures and reactive surface structures with a large surface area owing to their minute size [15]. MgO NPs with different surface structures can also be obtained depending on the calcination temperature [16]. We found that MgO NPs obtained by calcination at 700 °C induced significant ROS production in tomato and Arabidopsis roots [11,12,14]. It has been suggested that MgO NPs obtained by calcination at 700 °C have different surface structural characteristics from MgO NPs calcined at other temperatures (550, 900, 1000 °C), which may be involved in the interaction between MgO NPs and biomolecules [17].
Fusarium wilt of tomato is a soilborne disease caused by the filamentous fungus Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (FOL) that leads to significant economic losses to tomato production [18]. FOL survives for several years or more in the soil by forming thick-walled resting spores called chlamydospores, which germinate and invade the host through their roots and colonize xylems once the host is cultivated. The characteristic wilt symptoms appear as a result of severe water stress, mainly owing to vessel clogging caused by the growth of FOL. Wilting is most likely caused by a combination of pathogenic activities, such as the accumulation of fungal mycelia and/or toxin production [19]. Currently, control methods against Fusarium wilt mainly consist of soil fumigation with chemical fungicides and the use of resistant cultivars. Fumigation negatively affects the environment and human health. In addition, resistant varieties are losing their effectiveness owing to the continuous emergence of FOLs that overcome resistance. Therefore, it is highly desirable to establish alternative Fusarium wilt-control technologies. Biocontrol is a promising control method against Fusarium wilt, but it has the disadvantage that its effectiveness varies with the season, crop, and field [20].
In our previous report, we showed that, in tomato roots treated with MgO NPs, ROS are rapidly produced at the root tips where the FOL mycelium penetrates and at the vascular bundles through which FOL passes before entering the root xylem [12]. ROS strengthen the host cell wall [21] and serve as signals that mediate the activation of defense genes [22]. Therefore, ROS-mediated immunity against FOL may have been established in MgO NP-treated tomato roots before FOL infection. In fact, tomato seedlings irrigated at the base with a MgO NP suspension and grown for 7 days (pretreatment) did not develop Fusarium wilt until fruit harvest [12]. Moreover, because ROS play an important role in the adaptation process of plants to abiotic stresses [23], MgO NPs are suggested to be an abiotic stress for tomato roots. Furthermore, FOL infection is a biotic stressor in the tomato roots. Therefore, when tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs were challenge-inoculated with FOL, they were subjected to both abiotic and biotic stresses. However, it is not known how tomato roots respond to these stressful conditions.
In this study, we aimed to determine the response of tomato roots to MgO NPs (short- and long-term treatments) as a nonbiotic stress and to FOL infection (with and without MgO NPs pretreatment) as a biotic stress. Transcriptome analysis was performed on tomato roots treated under eight different conditions. We selected the cell wall-localized glycine-rich protein (SlGRP4) gene from the genes whose expression was significantly upregulated in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL as revealed by the transcriptome analysis, and immunostaining analysis confirmed the accumulation of SlGRP4 in the root tissue. In addition, we also performed microscopic observations to reveal the presence or absence of FOL proliferation in the roots of tomato plants pretreated with MgO NPs.

2. Results

2.1. RNA-seq Data Analysis

For transcriptome analysis, RNA was prepared from the roots of the following tomato plants and subjected to RNA sequencing: (i) those treated with distilled water for 1 h (H2O1h), (ii) those treated with MgO NPs for 1 h (MgO1h), (iii) those treated with distilled water for 7 days (H2O7d), (iv) those treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (MgO7d), (v) those treated with distilled water for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 1 h (H2O7d + FOL1h), (vi) those treated with MgO NPs for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 1 h (MgO7d + FOL1h), (vii) those treated with distilled water for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 21 days (H2O7d + FOL21d), and (viii) those treated with MgO NPs for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 21 days (MgO7d + FOL21d). After removing ambiguous nucleotides, 217,840,780 raw reads were obtained from the eight cDNA libraries. More than 96% of the high-quality reads in each sample could be mapped to the Solanum lycopersicum reference genome.

2.2. Identification of DEGs

A total of 33,810 high-quality unigenes from tomatoes were mapped and annotated. DEGs were examined in the seven groups. (i) “H2O1h vs. MgO1h”, (ii) “H2O7d vs. MgO7d”, (iii) “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h”, (iv) “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”, (v) “H2O7d + H2O 21 d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d”, (vi) “MgO7d + H2O21h vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”, and (vii) “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” (Figure 1). In tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 1 h (H2O1h vs. MgO1h), 3098 DEGs with 1503 upregulated and 1595 downregulated genes were identified. In tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (“H2O7d vs. MgO7d”), 5055 DEGs with 2446 upregulated and 2609 downregulated genes were identified. In tomato roots treated with H2O for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 1 h (“H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h”), 4906 DEGs with 2786 upregulated and 2120 downregulated genes were identified. In tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 1 h (“MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”), 5269 DEGs with 2964 upregulated and 2305 downregulated genes were identified. In tomato roots treated with H2O for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 21 days (“H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d”), 5923 DEGs with 3641 upregulated and 2282 downregulated genes were identified. In tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 7 days and challenge-inoculated with FOL for 21 days (“MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”), 4685 DEGs with 2557 upregulated and 2128 downregulated genes were identified. Expressed genes after FOL inoculation for 1 h with (“MgO7d + FOL1h”) and without (“H2O7d + FOL1h”) MgO NP pretreatment were also analyzed for DEGs. In this comparison group, 4078 DEGs with 2093 upregulated and 1985 downregulated genes were identified (Figure 2A). A comparison of genes whose expression changed significantly in response to FOL inoculation (1 h) with and without MgO NPs pretreatment revealed 716 genes specific to MgO NP-pretreated tomato roots (Figure 2B).

2.3. Gene Ontology (GO) and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) Pathway Analyses of DEGs

To explore the biological functions of DEGs in the seven comparison groups (“H2O1h vs. MgO1h”, “H2O7d vs. MgO7d”, “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h”, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”, “H2O7d + H2O21h vs. H2O7d + FOL21d”, “MgO7d + H2O21h vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”, and “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”), the GO and KEGG enrichment analysis were conducted.
For GO analysis, the DEGs in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group were classified into 151 functional terms, namely, 84 terms in biological process (BP), 9 in chemical component (CC), and 58 in molecular function (MF). The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S1. The total DEGs in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group were classified into 251 functional terms, namely, 116 terms in BP, 30 in CC, and 105 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S2. The DEGs of the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group were classified into 264 functional terms, namely, 162 terms in BP, 22 in CC, and 80 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S3. The DEGs of the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group were classified into 354 functional terms, namely, 218 terms in BP, 19 in CC, and 117 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S4. The DEGs of the “H2O7d+ H2O21h vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group were classified into 334 functional terms, namely, 194 terms in BP, 44 in CC, and 96 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S5. The DEGs of the “MgO7d + H2O21h vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” were classified into 266 functional terms: 143 terms in BP, 31 in CC, and 92 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S6. The DEGs of the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” were classified into 263 functional terms: 145 terms in BP, 21 in CC, and 97 in MF. The top 10 GO terms enriched for the upregulated genes in the BP category are listed in Table S7. The “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” comparison group showed enrichment of GO terms related to terpenoid and isoprenoid biosynthesis and metabolic process (Table S1), whereas the other six comparison groups were enriched in similar GO terms (Tables S2–S7).
KEGG enrichment analysis for the seven comparison groups was performed on 11922 of the 33811 tomato genes linked to Ko numbers (KEGG ortholog numbers) in the KEGG database. KEGG pathways enriched for the seven comparison groups are shown in the Supplementary Materials (Figures S1–S7). The top 10 pathways enriched in each comparative group are shown in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5, Table 6 and Table 7.
KEGG enrichment pathways of the seven comparative groups were analyzed. We particularly focused on three KEGG enrichment pathways, “MAPK signaling pathway-plant”, “Plant hormone signal transduction”, and “Plant-pathogen interaction”, because they were highly enriched in all comparative groups.
For “MAPK signaling pathway-plant”, genes involved in the following pathways were upregulated in each comparison group: “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid”, “Reactive oxygen species”, “Wounding” in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group; “Ethylen” and “Jasmonic acid” in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group; “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid”, “Cold/Salt”, “Abscisic acid”, “Reactive oxygen species“, and “Wounding” in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group; “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid”, “Cold/Salt”, “Abscisic acid”, “Reactive oxygen species”, and “Wounding” in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group; “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid”, “Cold/Salt”, “Abscisic acid”, “Reactive oxygen species”, and “Wounding” in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group; “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid”, “Cold/Salt”, “Abscisic acid”, “Reactive oxygen species”, and “Wounding” in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group; “Pathogen infection”, “Pathogen attack”, “Jasmonic acid”, and “Abscisic acid” in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” group; and “Ethylene” and “Abscisic acid” in the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group. Conversely, in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group, genes involved in “Pathogen attack” and “Reactive oxygen species” pathways were downregulated (Figure 3, blue frame). In addition, MAPK genes were downregulated in this comparison group. In the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” and “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” groups, only MAPK genes were upregulated among MAPKKK, MAPKK, and MAPK genes, whereas in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group, MAPKKK as well as MAPK genes were upregulated (Figure 3, red frame). OXI1 encoding a serine/threonine kinase induced by ROS was upregulated in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” and “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” groups (Figure 3, red arrow). RbhoD encoding NADPH oxidase was upregulated in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL. (“MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” and “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” groups) (Figure 3, green arrow).
For “Plant hormone signal transduction”, genes involved in the following pathways were upregulated in each comparison group: “Cytokinine”, “Gibberellin”, “Ethylene”, “Jasmonic acid” in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group; “Jasmonic acid” and “Salicylic acid” in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group; “Gibberellin”, “Abscisic acid”, and “Jasmonic acid” in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group; “Gibberellin” and “Jasmonic acid” in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”; “Auxin” and “Brassinosteroid” in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group; “Auxin” and “Jasmonic acid” in the “MgO7d vs. MgOd + FOL21d” group; and “Jasmonic acid” in the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group. In the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group, “Cytokinine” and “Abscisic acid” pathways were downregulated (Figure S8).
For “Plant-pathogen interaction”, the following genes were significantly upregulated in each comparison group: cyclic nucleotide gated channels (CNGCs), MPK3/6, WRKY25/33, PR1, Rd19, and KCS1/10 in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group; Rcr3, SGT1, and KCS1/10 in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group; CaMCML, MEK1, MPK3/6, WRKY25/33, WRKY29, PBS1, SGT1, and KCS1/10 in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group; Rcr3, FLS2, Rboh, CaMCML, MPK4, WRKY25/33, MPK3/6, WRKY29, RIN4, SGT, and KCS1/10 in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group; CaMCML, MPK3/6, WRKY25/33, PR1, RIN4, RPM1, Rd19 in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group; Rcr3, WRKY25/33, WRKY29, RPM1, Rd19, and KCS1/10 in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” group; and Rcr3, Rboh, CaMCML, RIN4, and HSP90 in the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group.
Rcr3 gene encoding a papain-like apoplastic protease was commonly upregulated in the tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (“H2O7d vs. MgO7d”, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”, and “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” groups) (Figure 4, red arrow). The cyclic nucleotide gated channels (CNGCs) gene was upregulated only in tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 1 h (“H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group) (Figure 4, green arrow).

2.4. Quantitative Real-Time PCR (qRT-PCR) Analysis

To verify the accuracy of RNA-seq in tomato plants, four DEGs were randomly selected for qRT-PCR analysis using specific primers. The results showed that the expression patterns of the four genes detected using qRT-PCR are consistent with the RNA-seq results (Figure 5).

2.5. Analysis of DEGs

The top 100 DEGs in each of the seven comparative groups are shown in the Supplementary Materials (Tables S8–S14).
To identify marker genes characterizing MgO NP-induced immunity against Fusarium wilt, we searched for genes that showed remarkable upregulation when MgO-pretreated tomato plants were inoculated with FOL compared to those before FOL inoculation. Four genes (Solyc03g098010.2, encoding acid phosphatase; Solyc08g006850.2, encoding a patatin-like phospholipase family protein; Solyc10g075150.1, encoding a nonspecific lipid-transfer protein; and Solyc09g097760.2, encoding a glycine-rich protein) showed such traits (Figure 6, asterisk). Among those genes, Solyc09g097760.2 encoding glycine-rich protein (accession XP004248032.1; gene name: SlGRP4 [24]), which has been suggested to be involved in Fusarium wilt resistance in tomato [25], was chosen for further analysis.

2.6. Expression Analysis of the SlGRP4 Gene

The transcript levels of SlGRP4 were examined in the seven comparative groups. SlGRP4 gene was differentially expressed with upregulation in the three comparative groups: “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” (response of roots to MgO NPs) (log2FC = 4.020), “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” (response of MgO NP-pretreated roots to FOL) (log2FC = 4.686), and “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” (differences in response between roots pretreated with and without MgO NPs to FOL) (log2FC = 8.495). No differences in the transcript levels were observed in “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” (response of roots to MgO NPs treatment for 7 days), “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” (response of roots to FOL inoculation), or “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” (response of MgO NPs-pretreated roots to long-term FOL inoculation) groups. In the H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group (susceptible response), the expression of SlGRP4 was remarkably reduced (log2FC = −7.894).
To determine the expression pattern of SlGRP4 in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL, qRT-PCR was conducted with specific primers. In MgO NP-pretreated tomato roots, SlGRP4 was highly expressed immediately (30 min) after FOL inoculation and decreased at 1 h. However, it then increased again at 3 h and 24 h and decreased at 72 h. In other words, multiple peaks of increased expression of SlGRP4 were observed when MgO NP-pretreated roots were inoculated with FOL (Figure 7).

2.7. Prediction of Cis-Acting Elements in the SlGRP4 Gene

To understand the possible regulatory mechanisms of SlGRP4, the cis-acting elements encompassing 2000 bp 5′ upstream of the translation start site of the gene were analyzed using PlantCARE (https://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/, accessed on 10 December 2022). Thirty-five cis-acting elements potentially involved in the regulation of SlGRP4 were identified, including those that respond to phytohormones, such as abscisic acids, salicylic acid, and methyl jasmonate, and those recognized by MYC and MYB transcription factors (Figure S9).

2.8. Localization of SlGRP4 in Tomato Roots

To localize the SlGRP4 protein expressed in tomato root tissues, immunostaining of tomato roots was performed using an anti-SlGRP4 antibody. SlGRP4 protein was detected in the cell walls of epidermal and vascular vessel cells of tomato roots treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (pretreatment only) (Figure 8C). In the root pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL, SlGRP4 protein heavily accumulated in the cell walls of cortical tissue, epidermal tissue, and vascular vessel cells (Figure 8D). No accumulation of SlGRP4 protein was observed in tomato roots that were not treated with MgO NPs followed by FOL inoculation (Figure 8B). In the root pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL, reactive oxygen species (ROS) were rapidly produced in cortical tissue and vascular vessel cells (Figure 8H).

2.9. Microscopic Observation of Tomato Root Tissue Pretreated with MgO NPs and Challenge-Inoculated with FOL

Tomato plants treated with and without MgO NPs were inoculated with FOL and grown for 21 days. Similar to the results reported in a previous study [12], tomato plants pretreated with MgO NPs were completely disease-free, even 21 days after FOL inoculation. In contrast, all tomato plants without MgO NPs pretreatment showed yellowing and wilting of leaves. Microscopy analysis revealed mycelial masses of FOL in the main roots and stems of the tomato plants that were not pretreated with MgO NPs (Figure 7, arrows). In addition, dark brown discoloration of vascular bundles, which is one of the symptoms of Fusarium wilt, was observed in the stems (Figure 9, asterisk). Few mycelia of FOL were observed in the roots and stems, and no discoloration of vascular bundles in the stem was observed in tomato plants pretreated with MgO NPs.

3. Discussion

In our previous report, we showed that when a MgO NPs suspension was drenched into the roots of tomato seedlings, ROS were produced in the tomato root tissue immediately after irrigation. In addition, tomato seedlings grown for 7 days after drenching (MgO NPs pretreatment) showed long-term immunity to FOL up to harvest, and the JA signaling pathway is essential for induction of this immunity [12]. However, gene expression in tomato roots immediately after MgO NPs treatment and in MgO NP-pretreated tomato roots is not known. We also did not know the gene expression patterns when MgO NP-pretreated tomato roots were inoculated with FOL, or the gene expression patterns in tomato roots with established immunity to FOL. Furthermore, how immunity to FOL is established in tomato roots is also unknown. This study aims to clarify these issues.

3.1. Response of Tomato Roots to MgO NPs

In this study, KEGG enrichment analysis for “MAPK signaling pathway-plant” of DEGs in the comparison group “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” showed that ROS-induced serine/threonine kinase OXI1, a serine/threonine kinase induced by ROS [26], was upregulated. OXI1 is required for the full activation of MPK3 and MPK6; OXI1 is an essential part of the signal transduction pathway linking ROS signals to diverse downstream responses [26]. This suggests that OXI1 induced by ROS is involved in the upregulation of MPK3 and MPK6, which was shown in the roots 1 h after MgO NPs treatment, and further triggers downstream responses in which MPK3/6 acts. Interestingly, the gene (Rboh) for the enzyme (NADPH oxidase) that generates ROS [27] was not upregulated in “H2O1h vs. MgO1h”. However, the CNGCs gene, which triggers Ca2+ influx that activates Rboh [28], was upregulated, suggesting that Ca2+ influx may have activated Rboh and induced a ROS burst in the roots treated with MgO NPs. Among the DEGs of roots that were treated with MgO NPs for 1 h (“H2O1h vs. MgO1h”) (Table S8), Solyc10g081740.1 encoding “calcium dependent protein kinase 1,” which is upregulated depending on Ca2+ [29], and Solyc03g113940.2 encoding “calmodulin-binding protein 60-like G (CBP60g)” [30], which is involved in Ca2+ signaling in tomato plants [31], also suggest a Ca2+ influx in roots treated with MgO NPs. GO enrichment analysis of DEGs in “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” showed enrichment of GO terms involved in terpenoid production and metabolism. Because terpenoids mitigate the effects of oxidative stress by modulating the oxidative status of plants [32], a mitigation system for oxidative stress induced by MgO NPs would be activated in roots treated with MgO NPs.
In roots after 7 days of MgO NPs treatment (i.e., MgO NPs pretreatment: “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group), genes involved in “Pathogen attack” and “Reactive oxygen species” pathways were downregulated in the “MAPK signaling pathway-plant” (Figure 3, blue frame). In addition, many genes involved in “Plant hormone signal transduction” and “Plant-pathogen interaction” pathways were downregulated. In contrast, Rcr3, which encodes a papain-like apoplastic protease, was upregulated. Rcr3 (required for Cladosporium resistance-3) is a secreted papain-like cysteine protease of tomato that acts as a coreceptor for the Cf-2 resistance protein to detect Avr2, a secreted apoplastic effector of the fungal pathogen Cladosporium fulvum [33]. Recognition of Avr2 by Cf-2 results in localized programmed cell death known as the hypersensitivity response (HR) [33]. Rcr3 is upregulated by salicylic acid (SA) [34]. In fact, KEGG enrichment pathway “plant hormone signal transduction” analysis showed that the SA pathway was upregulated only in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group among the seven comparison groups in this study, suggesting the production of SA in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs.

3.2. Response of Tomato Roots to Fusarium oxysporum

Many pathways and genes in the three KEGG enrichment pathways, “MAPK signaling pathway-plant”, “Plant hormone signal transduction”, and “Plant-pathogen interaction” were enriched in both the “H2O + FOL1h” and “MgO + FOL1h” groups. However, in “MAPK signaling pathway-plant” pathways, tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs followed by FOL inoculation for 1 h (“MgO7d + FOL1h”) showed that only MAPK genes were upregulated among MAPKKK, MAPKK, and MAPK genes, whereas tomato roots pretreated with H2O followed by FOL inoculation (“H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group) showed that MAPKKK as well as MAPK genes were upregulated (Figure 3, red frame). As mentioned above, MAP3/6 genes were upregulated by the OXI1 transcription factor. OXI1 was not upregulated in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs followed by FOL inoculation for 1 h, suggesting that OXI1-independent mechanisms for upregulation of MAPK3/6 genes were induced by MgO NPs pretreatment in the roots. In tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs followed by FOL inoculation for 1 h (“MgO7d + FOL1h”), both Rboh encoding NADPH oxidase and Rcr3 encoding a papain-like apoplastic protease were upregulated. In contrast, no upregulation of these genes was observed in tomato roots pretreated with H2O followed by FOL inoculation for 1 h (“H2O7d + FOL1h”). Corroborating the elevated expression of Rboh, ROS were rapidly produced in cortical and vascular tissues in roots pretreated with MgO NPs in response to FOL inoculation (Figure 8H); no ROS were detected when roots that had not been pretreated with MgO NPs were inoculated with FOL, suggesting that roots pretreated with MgO NPs were hypersensitive to FOL infection. The roles of NADPH oxidase and Rcr3 in suppressing FOL infection in tomato roots are unknown; however, both are involved in extracellular immunity [35]. Thus, their rapid expression within 1 h of inoculation seems to be important for extracellular immunity (apoplastic immunity) in MgO NP-induced immunity against FOL in tomatoes.
In tomato roots with no MgO NPs pretreatment 21 days after FOL inoculation, FOL had reached the stem xylems, and tomato plants showed symptoms of Fusarium wilt. In other words, the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group represents DEGs in the susceptible response. On the other hand, the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” group represents DEGs in which MgO NPs-induced immunity has been established.
Comparing the two groups, the “Pathogen attack” pathway was enriched in the “MAPK signaling pathway-plant” in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group (susceptible response). MAP3/6 and OXI1 were also upregulated (Figure 3). In addition, SA-inducible PR1 was upregulated in the “Plant hormone signal transduction” pathways (Figure S8), suggesting that SA is produced in the roots with no MgO NPs pretreatment 21 days after FOL inoculation. This result is consistent with a report by Hernandez-Aparico et al. [36] that the activation of SA signaling occurs in susceptible responses. In contrast, in “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” (resistance response), MAP3/6 and OXI1 were not upregulated in the “MAPK signaling pathway-plant” pathways, but the apoplastic protease Rcr3 was upregulated. This suggests the involvement of apoplastic immunity in the MgO NP-induced immunity against FOL.

3.3. SlGRP4

In the present study, we revealed that the SlGRP gene was rapidly upregulated within 1 h when tomato roots were treated with MgO NPs and when tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs were inoculated with FOL, suggesting that SlGRP is upregulated in response to both abiotic (MgO NPs) and biotic (FOL) stresses. Cis-acting element analysis of the SlGRP gene revealed 35 cis-acting elements, including those that respond to phytohormones such as abscisic acids, SA, and methyl jasmonate, and those recognized by MYC and MYB transcription factors. We concluded that the SlGRP gene is involved in many stress responses. Increased GRP expression has been reported in response to abiotic stresses, such as salt, cold, heat, and injury, as well as biotic stress, including fungal infection [37].
GRPs are characterized by high glycine content and the presence of conserved segments including glycine-containing structural motifs of repetitive amino acid residues [38] and are classified into five classes (I to V) based on their general structure, taking into consideration the arrangement of the glycine repeats as well as the presence of conserved motifs [39]. The predicted amino acid sequence of SlGRP contains the Class V feature GGX/GXGX (where G represents glycine and X any amino acid). However, the function of class V GRPs is currently unknown.
GRPs localized in the cell walls of potato vascular bundles have been suggested to be involved in resistance to Ralstonia solanacearum, which causes vascular wilt disease such as FOL [24]. In the present study, it was shown that SlGRP4 accumulated in the cell walls of tomato vascular bundles and epidermal cells after MgO NPs treatment. Furthermore, inoculation of tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs with FOL resulted in rapid and significant SlGRP4 upregulation, demonstrating that SlGRP4 protein accumulates in the cell walls of root cortex cells in addition to the cell walls of tomato vascular bundles and epidermal cells. After FOL invades tomato roots, the mycelium extends into the intercellular space of the cortex to reach the xylem vessels, during which many host defense reactions were observed [40]. Thus, SlGRP4 may play an important role in this process. In fact, in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated by FOL, FOL mycelia were barely found in the tissues (Figure 9), suggesting that FOL infection of the root cortex and subsequent mycelial extension into xylems was strongly inhibited in tomato plants pretreated with MgO NPs even 21 days after FOL inoculation. However, because FOL is re-isolated from the roots of such plants [12], it is expected to be present and survive on the root surface. Further studies are warranted to examine the colonization of FOL on the surface of tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs using GFP-labeled FOL.

3.4. Nanoparticles and Fusarium Wilt

The suppression of Fusarium wilt by nanoparticles, other than MgO NPs, has been demonstrated in metal oxide NPs such as CuO [41], ZnO [42], CaO [43], and Fe2O3 [44], and in metal NPs including silver [45] and manganese [46]. ROS induction after interaction with NPs has also been observed stably across plant species [47]. ROS induced by NPs acts as a signal for secondary metabolism, and secondary metabolites can act as antimicrobial compounds to protect plants from pathogenic microbes [47]. In the present study, GO enrichment analysis of DEGs in “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” showed that GO terms involved in the production and metabolism of terpenoids, which are materials for phytoalexins, were enriched (Table S1), suggesting that secondary metabolites accumulated in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs. This also suggests that tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs may have already been ready to produce phytoalexins and other antimicrobial compounds before inoculation with FOL.
Present study revealed that rapid ROS production and SlGRP accumulation were induced in cortical tissue and vascular vessel cells of the roots pretreated with MgO NPs when challenge-inoculated with FOL (Figure 8), suggesting that ROS production may be associated with GRP accumulation. It is not known whether such rapid ROS production occurs in the roots pretreated with other NPs when challenge-inoculated with FOL. It is also unclear whether the “apoplastic immunity” suggested in the present study also occurs in other NPs-induced immunity against Fusarium wilt. Further studies are warranted to elucidate these points, which will provide important insights into Fusarium wilt resistance in tomato.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. MgO NPs

The MgO NPs (Ube Material Industries, Yamaguchi, Japan) were produced by calcination of Mg (OH)2 at 700 °C. Water-dispersible MgO NP powder (KF-37) was prepared by Sankei Chemical (Tokyo, Japan).

4.2. Plant Material

Tomato plants (‘Momotaro’; Takii Seed, Kyoto, Japan) were grown in small pots (diameter, 9 cm; height, 7.6 cm) containing a vermiculite and perlite (1:1) mixture at 25 °C under a 12 h photoperiod with a photon flux density of 100 μmol·m−2·s−1 for 30 days. The 30-day-old tomato plants were subjected to MgO NP treatment, FOL inoculation experiments, and RNA sequencing, as described below.

4.3. Fungal Strains and Growth Conditions

The pathogen causing Fusarium wilt in tomatoes, FOL CK3–1 [48], was obtained from Dr. Takashi Tsuge (Nagoya University, Nagoya, Japan). A pure FOL culture was maintained on potato dextrose agar plates at 25 °C for 7 days. After incubation, fungal hyphal tips were obtained from the growing edge using a sterile sharp needle and transferred to 100 mL of potato dextrose broth (PDB). The broth was incubated at 25 °C with shaking at 120 rpm for seven days. The samples were filtered through three layers of gauze cloth and the filtrate was centrifuged at 3000× g for 5 min. The pellets were washed thrice and suspended in 20 mL of sterile distilled water. Conidial spore load was calculated using a hemocytometer and adjusted to 1 × 106 conidia/mL for inoculation.

4.4. Inoculation Experiments

For treatment with MgO NPs, tomato plant pots were drenched by irrigation with 50 mL of 1% MgO NPs (KF-37) suspension or water (control), after which the plants were left to grow for seven days under the conditions described in Section 4.2. (MgO NPs pretreatment). Following the MgO NPs treatment, tomato roots were carefully washed with water to remove all surface MgO NPs. For FOL inoculation, roots were dipped in a fungal spore suspension or water (control) for 60 min. The inoculated plants were transferred to pots containing vermiculite and grown under preinoculation conditions. More than three tomato plants were used for each treatment, and all experiments were repeated at least thrice.

4.5. RNA Extraction

For RNA sequencing library construction, total RNA was extracted using Sepasol-RNA I Super G (Nacalai Tesque, Kyoto, Japan) from the roots of tomato plants with eight different treatments; (i) 30-day-old tomato plants were irrigated with water and left for 1 h (H2O1h), (ii) 30-day-old tomato plants were irrigated with 1% MgO NP suspension and left for 1 h (MgO1h), (iii) 30-day-old tomato plants were irrigated with water for 7 days (H2O7d), (iv) 30-day-old tomato plants were irrigated with 1% MgO NP suspension for 7 days (MgO NPs pretreatment only) (MgO7d), (v) tomato plants with no MgO NP pretreatment were inoculated with FOL for 1 h (H2O + FOL1h), (vi) (H2O7d + FOL21d), (vii) tomato plants with no MgO NP pretreatment were inoculated with FOL and grown for 21 days (H2O7d + FOL21d), and (viii) tomato plants pretreated with MgO NPs were inoculated with FOL and grown for 21 days (MgO7d + FOL21d). The total RNA concentration was determined using a Biospec-nano spectrophotometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan). More than three tomato plants were used for each treatment, and all experiments were repeated twice.

4.6. Preparation of cDNA Library and Sequencing

Aliquots (500 ng) of RNA were used for cDNA library preparation using an NEBNext Ultra II RNA Library Prep Kit for Illumina (NEB, Ipswich, MA, USA). cDNA libraries were sequenced using the Illumina MiniSeq platform to generate 75 bp single-end raw reads. Prior to assembly, raw data were filtered using a range of quality control measures. High-quality sequences were obtained from the original offline data sequences by removing the reads containing adapters and low-quality reads. All subsequent analyses were based on filtered clean data, which were aligned against the reference genome (GenBank accession number: GCA_000188115.3) using the CLC Genomics Workbench software ver. 12.0.3.

4.7. Screening of DEGs, Annotation, and GO and KEGG Analyses

The sequencing results were analyzed using CLC genomic workbench version 10.1.1. The reference genome sequence and annotation information of Solanum lycopersicum was obtained from NCBI (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genome/, accessed on 14 January 2020) and the used version was SL2.50. The value of unique exon read, which was obtained from the counted all mapped reads on exons, was used for gene expression profile analysis. Gene expression profiles were compared to find differentially expressed genes (DEGs) among different conditions using edgeR R package [49]. Genes with log2 (fold change) values greater than 1 or lower than −1 were assigned as DEGs. Gene ontology (GO) number assignment of each gene of S. lycopersicum SL2.50 was performed by blastp program [50] with the protein sequence data set of UniProt [uniprot_sprot, release-2019_10] (https://www.uniprot.org/, accessed on 25 October 2022). The cut-off criteria for assignment of a gene to homologous protein of UniProt database were >70% coverage and >25% identity, respectively. GO enrichment analysis of DEGs was performed using topGO R package [51] (https://bioc.ism.ac.jp/packages/3.12/bioc/html/topGO.html, accessed on 25 October 2022) with assigned GO number. GO terms with p values less than 0.01 were considered significantly enriched. KEGG orthology number assignment was performed on KofamKOALA website (https://www.genome.jp/tools/kofamkoala/, accessed on 25 October 2022). Pathway analysis was performed and visualized by KEGG (http://www.genome.jp/kegg/, accessed on 25 October 2022).

4.8. Gene Expression Analysis

Total RNA was extracted as described in Section 4.5. Reverse transcription was performed with 1 µg total RNA in a 20 µL reaction volume using ReverTra Ace qPCR RT Master Mix with gDNA Remover (Toyobo, Osaka, Japan) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. The primers used are listed in Table S15. cDNA was diluted (1:1), and 1 μL was used as a template in 20 μL of THUNDERBIRD SYBR qPCR Mix (Toyobo). The gene expression in each sample was normalized to that of tomato actin (GenBank accession No. FJ532351). Gene-specific primers were designed using Primer Express (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), based on sequences deposited in GenBank, to amplify 70–150 bp fragments (Table S10). Real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) analysis was performed using the Applied Biosystems’ QuantStudio Real-Time PCR system (Applied Biosystems). Relative quantification was performed using the ΔΔCT method (Livak and Schmittgen, 2001 [52]).

4.9. Cis-Element Prediction

The generic file format of Solanum lycopersicum DC9.1 sequence (SlGRP4) [24] (accession: XP004248032.1) encompassing 2000 bp 5′ upstream of the translation start site was used to search the promoter sequence. Afterwards, the online program Plant CARE database (http://bioinformatics.psb.ugent.be/webtools/plantcare/html/, accessed on 10 December 2022) was used to identify the cis-acting elements of the sequence.

4.10. Microscopy

To detect FOL in root tissues, tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with FOL were cut into 3 mm-long segments with a blade, which were prepared into sections for light microscopy using a freezing microtome (Nihon Khoki, Osaka, Japan). The sections were then stained with 1% cotton blue in lactophenol and observed under a BH2 light microscope (Olympus, Tokyo, Japan).
For immunostaining, tomato roots were cut into 3 mm-long segments with a blade and fixed in 5% glutaraldehyde in cacodylate buffer (pH 7.0). Fixed samples were immersed in t-butyl alcohol after dehydration through a graded series of t-butyl alcohol-ethanol and then embedded in paraffin. Transverse sections (14–18 m thick) were cut using a rotary microtome. Paraffin was removed using Histo-Clear (National Diagnostics, Atlanta, GA, USA), and sections were hydrated in a graded series of ethanol to water.
For immunohistochemical analysis for the localization of SlGRP4 in tomato root tissue, antibodies against a synthesized peptide fragment (CGGGYKPPHGEYKSPGGGYKPPH), designed based on the amino acid sequence of Solanum lycopersicum DC9.1 sequence (SlGRP4) [24] (accession: XP004248032.1), were raised in rabbits. The Vectastain ABC horseradish peroxidase staining kit (rabbit IgG) (Vector Laboratories, Burlingame, CA, USA) was used for immunohistochemical localization of SlGRP4 in tomato hypocotyl tissues with 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrahydrochloride (Wako Pure Chemical, Osaka, Japan) as the substrate following the manufacturer’s instructions. The sections were observed under an optical microscope (Olympus BH-2, Tokyo, Japan).
For ROS production in tomato root tissue, tomato roots were histochemically stained with 3′3′-diaminobenzidine (DAB) to visualize in situ ROS (hydrogen peroxide) accumulation. Tomato roots were immersed in DAB solution (2 mg/mL) for 15 min under vacuum, then root sections were cut with a razor blade and observed under a BH2 light microscope (Olympus).

5. Conclusions

Tomato seedlings grown for 7 days after drenching with MgO NPs suspension showed long-term immunity to Fusarium wilt of tomato up to harvest. The molecular mechanisms underlying this immune response are largely unknown. In this study, we attempted to identify the genes involved in MgO NP-induced immunity against Fusarium wilt using RNA-seq analysis. Our study revealed that Rboh encoding NADPH oxidase and Rcr3 encoding a papain-like apoplastic protease were upregulated within 1 h after inoculation of FOL on roots pretreated with MgO NPs. This study also revealed that the SlGRP4 gene was rapidly expressed in tomato roots treated with MgO NPs and its product SlGRR4 profusely accumulated in the cell walls of epidermal and vascular cells. In addition, upon FOL inoculation, SlGRR4 rapidly and greatly accumulated in the cell walls of cortical cells. Because Rboh, Rcr3, and cell wall-located GRPs are all involved in extracellular immunity (apoplastic immunity) in tomato plants, apoplastic immunity plays an important role in MgO NP-induced immunity against Fusarium wilt.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/ijms24032941/s1.

Author Contributions

S.-i.I. conceived and designed the experiments; Y.T. performed experiments and wrote the paper; I.F., A.W. and A.Y. performed the experiments; T.K. carried out bioinformatics analysis; K.S. (Kosei Sakane), K.I., K.S. (Kazunori Sasaki), H.K. and S.S. discussed and interpreted the results; Y.M. performed RNA sequencing; M.S.H. and S.J. performed data analysis. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by a Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (grant number 18K05647) from the Japanese Society for Promotion of Sciences (JSPS).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

All raw reads were deposited in the DDBJ Sequence Read Archive (DRA) under accession number DRA015378.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Takashi Tsuge, Nagoya University, Japan for kindly providing Fusarium oxysporum CK3-1. The authors also thank Ube Materials Co., Ltd. and Sankei Chemical Co., Ltd. for kindly providing MgO NPs samples.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Savary, S.; Willocquet, L.; Pethybridge, S.J.; Esker, P.; McRoberts, N.; Nelson, A. The global burden of pathogens and pests on major food crops. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2019, 3, 430–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Hirooka, T.; Ishii, H. Chemical control of plant diseases. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2013, 79, 390–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nicolopoulou-Stamati, P.; Maipas, S.; Kotampasi, C.; Stamatis, P.; Hens, L. Chemical pesticides and human health: The urgent need for a new concept in agriculture. Front. Public Health 2016, 4, 148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. OECD. Report of the OECD Workshop on Integrated Pest Management (IPM) Strategies for the Adaptation and Implementation of IPM in Agriculture, Contributing to the Sustainable Use of Pesticides and to Pesticide Risk Reduction; Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development: Paris, France, 2014; Berlin, Germany, 16–19 October 2012; Available online: https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/docserver/9789264221635-en.pdf?expires=1669627447&id=id&accname=guest&checksum=EC1A398AF69E11603EF149104CF5C319 (accessed on 28 November 2022).
  5. Yang, B.; Yang, S.; Zheng, W.; Wang, Y. Plant immunity inducers: From discovery to agricultural application. Stress Biol. 2022, 2, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhou, M.; Wang, W. Recent advance in synthetic chemical inducers of plant immunity. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Chowdhury, S.P.; Hartmann, A.; Gao, X.; Borriss, R. Biocontrol mechanism by root-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42—A review. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Dewen, Q.; Yijie, D.; Yi, Z.; Shupeng, L.; Fachao, S. Plant immunity inducer development and application. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2017, 30, 355–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Wang, M.; Gao, L.; Dong, S.; Sun, Y.; Shen, Q.; Guo, S. Role of silicon on plant-pathogen interactions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Suarez-Fernandez, M.; Marhuenda-Egea, F.C.; Lopez-Moya, F.; Arnao, M.B.; Cabrera-Escribano, F.; Nueda, M.J.; Gunsé, B.; Lopez-Llorca, L.V. Chitosan induces plant hormones and defenses in tomato root exudates. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 572087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Imada, K.; Sakai, S.; Kajihara, H.; Tanaka, S.; Ito, S. Magnesium oxide nanoparticles induce systemic resistance in tomato against bacterial wilt disease. Plant Pathol. 2016, 65, 551–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Fujikawa, I.; Takehara, Y.; Ota, M.; Imada, K.; Sasaki, K.; Kajihara, H.; Sakai, S.; Jogaiah, S.; Ito, S. Magnesium oxide induces immunity against Fusarium wilt by triggering the jasmonic acid signaling pathway in tomato. J. Biotechnol. 2021, 325, 100–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kessler, A.; Hedberg, J.; Blomberg, E.; Odnevall, I. Reactive oxygen species formed by metal and metal oxide nanoparticles in physiological media-A review of reactions of importance to nanotoxicity and proposal for categorization. Nanomaterials 2022, 12, 1922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ota, M.; Imada, K.; Sasaki, K.; Kajihara, H.; Sakai, S.; Ito, S. MgO-Induced defence against bacterial wilt disease in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Pathol. 2019, 68, 323–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Klabunde, K.J.; Stark, J.; Koper, O.; Mohs, C.; Park, D.G.; Decker, S.; Jiang, Y.; Lagadic, I.; Zhang, D. Nanocrystals as stoichiometric reagents with unique surface chemistry. J. Phys. Chem. 1996, 100, 12142–12153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zang, X.; Zheng, Y.; Feng, X.; Han, X.; Bai, Z.; Zhang, Z. Calcination temperature-dependent surface structure and physicochemical properties of magnesium oxide. RSC Adv. 2015, 5, 86102–86112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Haneda, M.; Kato, K.; Sakai, S. Evaluation of physico-chemical properties of magnesium oxide. Annu. Rep. Adv. Ceram. Res. Cent. Nagoya Inst. Technol. 2017, 5, 44–51. [Google Scholar]
  18. Harikrushana, P.; Ramchandra, S.; Shah, K.R. Study of wilt producing Fusarium sp. from tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill). Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. App. Sci. 2014, 3, 854–858. [Google Scholar]
  19. Di Pietro, A.; Madrid, M.P.; Caracuel, Z.; Delgado-Jarana, J.; Roncero, M.I.G. Fusarium oxysporum: Exploring the molecular arsenal of a vascular wilt fungus. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003, 4, 315–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. de Lamo, F.J.; Takken, F.L.W. Biocontrol by Fusarium oxysporum using endophyte-mediated resistance. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Lamb, C.; Dixon, R.A. The oxidative burst in plant disease resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol. 1997, 48, 251–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Levine, A.; Tenhaken, R.; Dixon, R.; Lamb, C.J. H2O2 from the oxidative burst orchestrates the plant hypersensitive disease resistance response. Cell 1994, 79, 583–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Choudhury, F.K.; Rivero, R.M.; Blumwald, E.; Mittler, R. Reactive oxygen species, abiotic stress and stress combination. Plant J. 2017, 90, 856–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Luo, Y.; Wang, C.; Yang, R.; Liu, H.; Suo, Y.; Gao, G. GRP genes in potato genome and their expression response to phytohormone and Ralstonia solanacearum. J. Phytopathol. 2022, 170, 724–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Silva, T.D.; Almeida, C.M.A.; Malafaia, C.B.; Oliveira, L.M.S.; Silva, M.V.; Correia, M.T.S. Analysis of protein profile of tomato root infected with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Genet. Mol. Res. 2017, 16, gmr16027209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Rentel, M.C.; Lecourieux, D.; Ouaked, F.; Usher, S.L.; Petersen, L.; Okamoto, H.; Knight, H.; Peck, S.C.; Grierson, C.S.; Hirt, H.; et al. OXI1 kinase is necessary for oxidative burst-mediated signalling in Arabidopsis. Nature 2004, 427, 858–861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sagi, M.; Fluhr, R. Superoxide production by plant homologues of the gp91phox NADPH oxidase. Modulation of activity by calcium and by tobacco mosaic virus infection. Plant Physiol. 2001, 126, 1281–1290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Saand, M.A.; Xu, Y.P.; Li, W.; Wang, J.P.; Cai, X.Z. Cyclic nucleotide gated channel gene family in tomato: Genome-wide identification and functional analyses in disease resistance. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Rutschmann, F.; Stalder, U.; Piotrowski, M.; Oecking, C.; Schaller, A. LeCPK1, a calcium-dependent protein kinase from tomato. Plasma membrane targeting and biochemical characterization. Plant Physiol. 2002, 129, 156–168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Wang, L.; Tsuda, K.; Sato, M.; Cohen, J.D.; Katagiri, F.; Glazebrook, J. Arabidopsis CaM binding protein CBP60g contributes to MAMP-induced SA accumulation and is involved in disease resistance against Pseudomonas syringae. PLoS Pathog. 2009, 5, e1000301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Shivnauth, V.; Pretheepkumar, S.; Marchetta, E.; Amani, K.; Castroverde, C.D.M. Structural diversity and stress regulation of the plant immunity-associated calmodulin-binding protein 60 (CBP60) family of transcription factors in Solanum lycopersicum (tomato). bioRxiv 2022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boncan, D.A.T.; Tsang, S.S.K.; Li, C.; Lee, I.H.T.; Lam, H.M.; Chan, T.F.; Hui, J.H.L. Terpenes and terpenoids in plants: Interactions with environment and insects. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 7382. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Paulus, J.K.; Kourelis, J.; Ramasubramanian, S.; Homma, F.; Godson, A.; Horger, A.C.; Hong, T.N.; Krahn, D.; Ossorio Carballo, L.; Wang, S.; et al. Extracellular proteolytic cascade in tomato activates immune protease Rcr3. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 17409–17417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Shabab, M.; Shindo, T.; Gu, C.; Kaschani, F.; Pansuriya, T.; Chintha, R.; Harzen, A.; Colby, T.; Kamoun, S.; van der Hoorn, R.A. Fungal effector protein AVR2 targets diversifying defense-related cys proteases of tomato. Plant Cell 2008, 20, 1169–1183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y. Apoplastic proteases: Powerful weapons against pathogen infection in plants. Plant Commun. 2020, 1, 100085. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Hernández-Aparicio, F.; Lisón, P.; Rodrigo, I.; Bellés, J.M.; López-Gresa, M.P. Signaling in the tomato immunity against Fusarium oxysporum. Molecules 2021, 26, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Kwak, K.J.; Kim, Y.O.; Kang, H. Characterization of transgenic Arabidopsis plants overexpressing GR-RBP4 under high salinity, dehydration, or cold stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2005, 56, 3007–3016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Czolpinska, M.; Rurek, M. Plant glycine-rich proteins in stress response: An emerging, still prospective story. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Mangeon, A.; Junqueira, R.M.; Sachetto-Martins, G. Functional diversity of the plant glycine-rich proteins superfamily. Plant Signal. Behav. 2010, 5, 99–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Olivain, C.; Alabouvette, C. Process of tomato root colonization by a pathogenic strain of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici in comparison with non-pathogenic strain. New Phytol. 1999, 141, 497–510. [Google Scholar]
  41. Elmer, W.; De La Torre-Roche, R.; Pagano, L.; Majumdar, S.; Zuverza-Mena, N.; Dimkpa, C.; Gardea-Torresdey, J.; White, J.C. Effect of metalloid and metal oxide nanoparticles on Fusarium wilt of watermelon. Plant Dis. 2018, 102, 1394–1401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Farhana; Munis, M.F.H.; Alamer, K.H.; Althobaiti, A.T.; Kamal, A.; Liaquat, F.; Haroon, U.; Ahmed, J.; Chaudhary, H.J.; Attia, H. ZnO nanoparticle-mediated seed priming induces biochemical and antioxidant changes in chickpea to alleviate Fusarium wilt. J. Fungi 2022, 8, 753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Turgut, B.A.; Bezirganoğlu, İ. Foliar application of CaO nanoparticles and salicylic acid on Medicago sativa seedlings enhances tolerance against Fusarium oxysporum. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2022, 122, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Elbasuney, S.; El-Sayyad, G.S.; Attia, M.S.; Abdelaziz, A.M. Ferric oxide colloid: Towards green nano-fertilizer for tomato plant with enhanced vegetative growth and immune response against Fusarium wilt disease. J. Inorg. Organomet. Polym. Mater. 2022, 32, 4270–4283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ahmad, M.; Ali, A.; Ullah, Z.; Sher, H.; Dai, D.Q.; Ali, M.; Iqbal, J.; Zahoor, M.; Ali, I. Biosynthesized silver nanoparticles using Polygonatum geminiflorum efficiently control fusarium wilt disease of tomato. Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol. 2022, 10, 988607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Noman, M.; Ahmed, T.; Ijaz, U.; Shahid, M.; Nazir, M.M.; Azizullah; White, J.C.; Li, D.; Song, F. Bio-functionalized manganese nanoparticles suppress Fusarium wilt in watermelon (Citrullus lanatus L.) by infection disruption, host defense response potentiation, and soil microbial community modulation. Small 2023, 19, 2205687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Marslin, G.; Sheeba, C.J.; Franklin, G. Nanoparticles alter secondary metabolism in plants via ROS burst. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Namiki, F.; Shiomi, T.; Kayamura, T.; Tsuge, T. Characterization of the formae speciales of Fusarium oxysporum causing wilt of cucurbits by DNA fingerprinting with nuclear repetitive DNA sequences. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1994, 60, 2684–2691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Robinson, M.D.; McCarthy, D.J.; Smyth, G.K. edgeR: A Bioconductor package for differential expression analysis of digital gene expression data. Bioinformatics 2010, 26, 139–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Altschul, S.F.; Gish, W.; Miller, W.; Myers, E.W.; Lipman, D.J. Basic local alignment search tool. J. Mol. Biol. 1990, 215, 403–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Alexa, A.; Rahnenfuhrer, J. topGO: Enrichment Analysis for Gene Ontology. R Package Version 2.50.0. Available online: https://rdrr.io/bioc/topGO/ (accessed on 25 October 2022).
  52. Livak, K.J.; Schmittgen, T.D. Analysis of relative gene expression data using real-time quantitative PCR and the 2−∆∆CT method. Methods 2001, 25, 402–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 24 02941 g001 550
Figure 1. Seven comparative groups (①~⑦) of DEGs.
Figure 1. Seven comparative groups (①~⑦) of DEGs.
Ijms 24 02941 g001
Ijms 24 02941 g002 550
Figure 2. Number of DEGs in seven comparative groups. (A) Number of upregulated and downregulated genes. (B) Venn diagrams showing the number of DEGs in different three sample comparisons.
Figure 2. Number of DEGs in seven comparative groups. (A) Number of upregulated and downregulated genes. (B) Venn diagrams showing the number of DEGs in different three sample comparisons.
Ijms 24 02941 g002
Ijms 24 02941 g003a 550Ijms 24 02941 g003b 550
Figure 3. KEGG enrichment pathway: MAPK signaling pathway-plant. The red and blue boxes represent genes that are upregulated and downregulated, respectively. The yellow boxes represent genes that are both upregulated and downregulated. The red frames indicate MAPKKK, MAKK, and MAPK genes, from left to right. The blue frames indicate pathways with reduced expression. The red arrows indicate the upregulated OXI1 gene. The green arrows show the upregulated RbohD gene. Black solid arrows indicate stimulation/activation. Black dashed arrows indicate indirect effect.
Figure 3. KEGG enrichment pathway: MAPK signaling pathway-plant. The red and blue boxes represent genes that are upregulated and downregulated, respectively. The yellow boxes represent genes that are both upregulated and downregulated. The red frames indicate MAPKKK, MAKK, and MAPK genes, from left to right. The blue frames indicate pathways with reduced expression. The red arrows indicate the upregulated OXI1 gene. The green arrows show the upregulated RbohD gene. Black solid arrows indicate stimulation/activation. Black dashed arrows indicate indirect effect.
Ijms 24 02941 g003aIjms 24 02941 g003b
Ijms 24 02941 g004a 550Ijms 24 02941 g004b 550Ijms 24 02941 g004c 550
Figure 4. KEGG enrichment pathway: Plant-pathogen interaction. The red and blue boxes represent genes that are upregulated and downregulated, respectively. The yellow boxes represent genes that are both upregulated and downregulated. The red arrows show the upregulated Rcr3 gene. The green arrow shows the upregulated cyclic nucleotide gated channels (CNGCs) gene. Black solid arrows indicate stimulation/activation. Black dashed arrows indicate indirect effect.
Figure 4. KEGG enrichment pathway: Plant-pathogen interaction. The red and blue boxes represent genes that are upregulated and downregulated, respectively. The yellow boxes represent genes that are both upregulated and downregulated. The red arrows show the upregulated Rcr3 gene. The green arrow shows the upregulated cyclic nucleotide gated channels (CNGCs) gene. Black solid arrows indicate stimulation/activation. Black dashed arrows indicate indirect effect.
Ijms 24 02941 g004aIjms 24 02941 g004bIjms 24 02941 g004c
Ijms 24 02941 g005 550
Figure 5. qRT-PCR analysis of DEGs in the seven comparative groups. 1, “H2O1h vs. MgO1h”; 2, “H2O7d vs. MgO7d”; 3, “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h”; 4, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”; 5, “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d”; 6, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”.
Figure 5. qRT-PCR analysis of DEGs in the seven comparative groups. 1, “H2O1h vs. MgO1h”; 2, “H2O7d vs. MgO7d”; 3, “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h”; 4, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h”; 5, “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d”; 6, “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d”.
Ijms 24 02941 g005
Ijms 24 02941 g006 550
Figure 6. Heatmap analysis to detect genes that show remarkable upregulation (asterisk) when MgO-pretreated tomato plants were inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici compared to those before FOL inoculation.
Figure 6. Heatmap analysis to detect genes that show remarkable upregulation (asterisk) when MgO-pretreated tomato plants were inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici compared to those before FOL inoculation.
Ijms 24 02941 g006
Ijms 24 02941 g007 550
Figure 7. Time course of SlGRP4 expression in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici.
Figure 7. Time course of SlGRP4 expression in tomato roots pretreated with MgO NPs and challenge-inoculated with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici.
Ijms 24 02941 g007
Ijms 24 02941 g008 550
Figure 8. Immunomicroscopy of SlGRP4 protein (A–D) and detection of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (E–H) in tomato root tissues. (A) Control (no MgO treatment, no FOL inoculation), (B) tomato root 2 days after inoculation with FOL without MgO pretreatment, (C) tomato root treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (pretreatment only), (D) tomato root 2 days after inoculation with FOL with Mg NPs pretreatment, (E) control (no MgO treatment, no FOL inoculation), (F) tomato root 1 h after inoculation with FOL without MgO pretreatment, (G) tomato root treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (pretreatment only), and (H) tomato root 1 h after inoculation with FOL with Mg NPs pretreatment. Yellow arrows represent immuno-stained SlGRP4 proteins. Red arrows represent ROS (brown precipitate) detected by diaminobenzidine (DAB) staining. Scale bars represent 100 μm.
Figure 8. Immunomicroscopy of SlGRP4 protein (A–D) and detection of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (E–H) in tomato root tissues. (A) Control (no MgO treatment, no FOL inoculation), (B) tomato root 2 days after inoculation with FOL without MgO pretreatment, (C) tomato root treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (pretreatment only), (D) tomato root 2 days after inoculation with FOL with Mg NPs pretreatment, (E) control (no MgO treatment, no FOL inoculation), (F) tomato root 1 h after inoculation with FOL without MgO pretreatment, (G) tomato root treated with MgO NPs for 7 days (pretreatment only), and (H) tomato root 1 h after inoculation with FOL with Mg NPs pretreatment. Yellow arrows represent immuno-stained SlGRP4 proteins. Red arrows represent ROS (brown precipitate) detected by diaminobenzidine (DAB) staining. Scale bars represent 100 μm.
Ijms 24 02941 g008
Ijms 24 02941 g009 550
Figure 9. Microscopy images of tomato stems (10 cm above ground) and main roots 21 days after inoculation with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Cross sections of each tissue were stained with lactophenol cotton blue. White arrows point to the mycelial masses of F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Asterisk indicates the dark brown discoloration of vascular bundles. Scale bars represent 100 μm.
Figure 9. Microscopy images of tomato stems (10 cm above ground) and main roots 21 days after inoculation with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Cross sections of each tissue were stained with lactophenol cotton blue. White arrows point to the mycelial masses of F. oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Asterisk indicates the dark brown discoloration of vascular bundles. Scale bars represent 100 μm.
Ijms 24 02941 g009
Table
Table 1. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group.
Table 1. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O1h vs. MgO1h” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways107102209
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites6559124
Carbon metabolism151126
Plant hormone signal transduction12921
Plant-pathogen interaction101020
MAPK signaling pathway-plant12719
Biosynthesis of amino acids8816
Biosynthesis of cofactors11415
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism8311
Protein processing in endoplasmic reticulum6511
Table
Table 2. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group.
Table 2. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. MgO7d” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways160213373
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites90139229
Carbon metabolism172542
Plant hormone signal transduction122133
Biosynthesis of cofactors132033
Biosynthesis of amino acids122032
Plant-pathogen interaction111627
MAPK signaling pathway-plant101626
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism81826
Starch and sucrose metabolism131023
Table
Table 3. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group.
Table 3. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL1h” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways195121316
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites12264186
Plant hormone signal transduction202040
Carbon metabolism211637
MAPK signaling pathway-plant211132
Plant-pathogen interaction191029
Biosynthesis of amino acids161127
Biosynthesis of cofactors16925
Cysteine and methionine metabolism12921
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism14620
Table
Table 4. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group.
Table 4. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways217124341
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites12872200
Carbon metabolism331851
Biosynthesis of amino acids221537
Plant hormone signal transduction152136
MAPK signaling pathway-plant201030
Plant-pathogen interaction19827
Biosynthesis of cofactors17926
Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis13821
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism10919
Table
Table 5. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group.
Table 5. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d vs. H2O7d + FOL21d” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways256182438
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites160105265
Carbon metabolism343266
Biosynthesis of cofactors321951
Biosynthesis of amino acids271845
Ribosome26834
Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis181432
Plant hormone signal transduction161531
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism22830
Pyruvate metabolism171229
Table
Table 6. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” group.
Table 6. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “MgO7d vs. MgO7d + FOL21d” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways163159322
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites88108196
Carbon metabolism202040
Plant hormone signal transduction141933
Biosynthesis of cofactors141529
Biosynthesis of amino acids91625
Starch and sucrose metabolism111324
MAPK signaling pathway-plant131023
Plant-pathogen interaction131023
Amino sugar and nucleotide sugar metabolism81422
Table
Table 7. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group.
Table 7. Top 10 pathways enriched in the “H2O7d + FOL1h vs. MgO7d + FOL1h” group.
PathwayUpDownTotal
Metabolic pathways147115262
Biosynthesis of secondary metabolites8674160
Carbon metabolism271239
Plant hormone signal transduction141832
Biosynthesis of amino acids13720
Biosynthesis of cofactors11718
Plant-pathogen interaction101121
MAPK signaling pathway-plant111122
Glycolysis/Gluconeogenesis91019
Starch and sucrose metabolism7916
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Takehara, Y.; Fijikawa, I.; Watanabe, A.; Yonemura, A.; Kosaka, T.; Sakane, K.; Imada, K.; Sasaki, K.; Kajihara, H.; Sakai, S.; et al. Molecular Analysis of MgO Nanoparticle-Induced Immunity against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 2941. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032941

AMA Style

Takehara Y, Fijikawa I, Watanabe A, Yonemura A, Kosaka T, Sakane K, Imada K, Sasaki K, Kajihara H, Sakai S, et al. Molecular Analysis of MgO Nanoparticle-Induced Immunity against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2023; 24(3):2941. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032941

Chicago/Turabian Style

Takehara, Yushi, Isamu Fijikawa, Akihiro Watanabe, Ayumi Yonemura, Tomoyuki Kosaka, Kosei Sakane, Kiyoshi Imada, Kazunori Sasaki, Hiroshi Kajihara, Shoji Sakai, and et al. 2023. "Molecular Analysis of MgO Nanoparticle-Induced Immunity against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 24, no. 3: 2941. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032941

APA Style

Takehara, Y., Fijikawa, I., Watanabe, A., Yonemura, A., Kosaka, T., Sakane, K., Imada, K., Sasaki, K., Kajihara, H., Sakai, S., Mizukami, Y., Haider, M. S., Jogaiah, S., & Ito, S. -i. (2023). Molecular Analysis of MgO Nanoparticle-Induced Immunity against Fusarium Wilt in Tomato. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 24(3), 2941. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms24032941

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop