20份木薯种质不同生育期对细菌性枯萎病的生理响应

doi:10.16088/j.issn.1001-6600.2025010203

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为进一步探究木薯抗细菌性枯萎病的生理机制,以不同抗病能力的木薯种质20份作为研究对象,在种植后苗期(1.5M)和成株期(3.5M)进行接菌处理,16 d后进行木薯抗性评价,并测定木薯叶片的苯丙氨酸解氨酶(PAL)、丙二醛(MDA)、超氧化物歧化酶(SOD)、多酚氧化酶(PPO)、过氧化氢酶(CAT)、过氧化物酶(POD)的活性和可溶性糖(soluble sugar)、可溶性蛋白(sPRO)、脯氨酸(proline)的含量,分析防御相关酶活性及内含物质的动态变化规律与细菌性枯萎病侵染过程、品种抗病性之间的关系。结果表明,PAL、PPO、POD的活性和MDA、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白、脯氨酸的含量呈先上升后下降趋势,在3.5M 处理下与健康叶片差异显著。SOD和CAT活性则相反。小叶病斑面积占比与SOD、CAT极显著负相关,与其余指标极显著正相关。抗病品种的防御酶活性和内含物质含量普遍高于感病品种。SC124多倍体的SOD、POD、PPO活性和可溶性糖、脯氨酸含量大于SC124,SC205多倍体的PAL、CAT、PPO活性大于SC205,表明PAL、PPO、POD、SOD、CAT和MDA、可溶性糖、可溶性蛋白、脯氨酸参与了木薯细菌性枯萎病的抗病调控过程。

关键词: 木薯, 种质, 细菌性枯萎病, 防御酶活性, 内含物质, 生理响应

Abstract: In order to further explore the physiological mechanism of cassava resistance to bacterial wilt disease, 20 cassava germplasm with different resistance abilities were selected as the research objects, and cultured at Seedling stage (1.5M) and the grown up stage (3.5M) after planting, and the resistance evaluation was carried out 16 days later. The activities of phenylalanine ammoniase (PAL), superoxide dismutase (SOD), polyphenol oxidase (PPO), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD), malondialdehyde (MDA) and soluble sugar in cassava leaflets were determined. The contents of sugar, soluble protein (sPRO), proline (proline) were analyzed, and the relationship between the activity of defense-related enzymes and the content of contents and the infection process of bacterial wilt disease and the disease resistance of varieties were analyzed. The results showed that PAL, PPO, POD activities and MDA, soluble sugar, soluble protein and proline contents increased first and then decreased, and there were significant differences between them and healthy leaflets under 3.5M treatment. SOD and CAT activities were opposite. The proportion of lobular lesions was significantly negatively correlated with SOD and CAT, and positively correlated with other indexes. The defense enzyme activity and contents of resistant varieties were generally higher than those of susceptible varieties. The activities of SOD, POD, PPO, soluble sugar and proline in SC124 tetraploid were higher than those in SC124, and the activities of PAL, CAT and PPO in SC205 tetraploid were higher than those in SC205. The results indicated that PAL, PPO, POD, SOD, CAT activities and MDA, soluble sugar, soluble protein and proline contents were involved in the disease resistance control process of cassava bacterial blight.

Key words: Cassava, germ plasm, bacterial blight, defense enzyme activity, internal substances, physiological response

中图分类号: S435.33

陈炯宇, 赵鑫鑫, 陈蕊蕊, 付海天, 盘欢, 郑华, 周时艺, 曾新华, 罗燕春. 20份木薯种质不同生育期对细菌性枯萎病的生理响应[J]. 广西师范大学学报（自然科学版）, 2026, 44(1): 126-142.

CHEN Jiongyu, ZHAO Xinxin, CHEN Ruirui, FU Haitian, PAN Huan, ZHENG Hua, ZHOU Shiyi, ZENG Xinhua, LUO Yanchun. Physiological Responses of 20 Cassava Germplasm at Different Growth Stages to Bacterial Blight Disease[J]. Journal of Guangxi Normal University(Natural Science Edition), 2026, 44(1): 126-142.

参考文献

[1] LYONS J B, BREDESON J V, MANSFELD B N, et al. Current status and impending progress for cassava structural genomics[J]. Plant Molecular Biology, 2022, 109(3): 177-191. DOI: 10.1007/s11103-020-01104-w.
[2] ZHOU Y G, LAI Y, ZHAO H, et al. Research progress on resources and utilization of forest grains and oils[J]. China Forest Products Industry, 2024, 61(11): 86. DOI: 10.19531/j.issn1001-5299.202411015.
[3] 王惠君, 王文泉, 李文彬, 等. 木薯的抗寒性及北移栽培技术研究进展综述[J]. 热带作物学报, 2016, 37(7): 1437-1443. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2016.07.031.
[4] 李军. 加强木薯食用化和能源化多元开发重振广西木薯产业[J]. 农业研究与应用, 2018, 31(1): 1-4.
[5] LOZANO J C. Cassava bacterial blight: a manageable disease[J]. Plant Disease, 1986, 70(12): 1089. DOI: 10.1094/pd-70-1089.
[6] YAN Y, WANG P, WEI Y X, et al. The dual interplay of RAV5 in activating nitrate reductases and repressing catalase activity to improve disease resistance in cassava[J]. Plant Biotechnology Journal, 2021, 19(4): 785-800. DOI: 10.1111/pbi.13505.
[7] WYDRA K, VERDIER V. Occurrence of cassava diseases in relation to environmental, agronomic and plant characteristics[J]. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 2002, 93(1/2/3): 211-226. DOI: 10.1016/S0167-8809(01)00349-8.
[8] 李超萍, 时涛, 刘先宝, 等. 国内木薯病害普查及细菌性萎蔫病安全性评估[J]. 热带作物学报, 2011, 32(1): 116-121. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2011.01.024.
[9] 李伯凌, 霍本君, 朱寿松, 等. 木薯叶片组织结构及生理生化特征与其抗细菌性枯萎病的关系[J]. 热带生物学报, 2017, 8(3): 292-300. DOI: 10.15886/j.cnki.rdswxb.2017.03.007.
[10] 吴美艳, 罗兴录, 樊铸硼, 等. 木薯抗细菌性枯萎病生理特性研究[J]. 南方农业学报, 2020, 51(6): 1353-1359. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2020.06.015.
[11] 林兆威, 李超萍, 蔡吉苗, 等. 3份木薯新种质抗细菌性萎蔫病机理初探[J]. 热带作物学报, 2021, 42(1): 205-212. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1000-2561.2021.01.028.
[12] DOS SANTOS TEIXEIRA J H, GUIMARÃES M A S, CARDOSO S C, et al. Evaluation of resistance to bacterial blight in Brazilian cassava germoplasm and disease-yield relationships[J]. Tropical Plant Pathology, 2021, 46(3): 324-335. DOI: 10.1007/s40858-021-00419-3.
[13] AQUILES K R, MARQUES E, MALAQUIAS J V, et al. Reaction of sweet cassava genotypes to Xanthomonas phaseoli pv. manihotis from three regions of Brazil[J]. Journal of Agricultural Science, 2021, 13(4): 64. DOI: 10.5539/JAS.V13N4P64.
[14] 卢昕, 李超萍, 时涛, 等. 国内603份木薯种质对细菌性枯萎病抗性评价[J]. 热带农业科学, 2013, 33(4): 67-70, 90. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-2196.2013.04.014.
[15] 岑贞陆, 黄思良, 任建国, 等. 木薯品种(组合)抗细菌性枯萎病性鉴定初报[J]. 广西农业生物科学, 2006(2): 134-135, 139.
[16] 王宝强, 马文静, 王贤, 等. 一氧化氮对干旱胁迫下紫花苜蓿幼苗次生代谢产物的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2023, 32(8): 141-151. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2022252.
[17] 黄小贞, 赵德刚. 植物苯丙氨酸解氨酶表达调控机理的研究进展[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2017, 45(4): 16-20. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1001-3601.2017.04.005.
[18] 张乐乐, 常璐璐, 王小佳, 等.褪黑素诱导采后冬枣抗黑斑病的研究[J]. 保鲜与加工, 2021, 21(12): 1-9. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1009-6221.2021.12.001.
[19] 曾乙, 张胜, 宋海凤. 胡杨对叶锈菌侵染的生理响应[J]. 植物生理学报, 2023, 59(2): 353-361. DOI: 10.13592/j.cnki.ppj.100320.
[20] 甘林, 兰成忠, 阮妙鸿, 等. 抗感玉米自交系对小斑病菌早期侵染反应的转录组分析[J]. 农业生物技术学报, 2023, 31(3): 460-474. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.1674-7968.2023.03.002.
[21] 耿莉娜, 龙艳玲, 徐宸, 等. 感染赤星病后不同烟草品种叶片防御酶的变化[J]. 西南大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 40(10): 19-24. DOI: 10.13718/j.cnki.xdzk.2018.10.003.
[22] 孙伟娜, 柯希望, 左豫虎, 等. 不同小豆抗性品种对锈菌侵染的生化响应和防卫反应基因的表达特征[J]. 植物保护学报, 2022, 49(3): 864-870. DOI: 10.13802/j.cnki.zwbhxb.2022.2020219.
[23] 周亚洁, 陈朋, 周鑫惠, 等. 不同品种小麦种子萌发及幼苗发育对外源过氧化氢处理的响应[J]. 湖北农业科学, 2022, 61(16): 5-11, 17. DOI: 10.14088/j.cnki.issn0439-8114.2022.16.001.
[24] 程守丰, 梁巧兰, 魏列新, 等.苜蓿不同品种AMV和WCMV带毒检测及生理生化特性研究[J]. 草业学报, 2020, 29(12): 140-149. DOI: 10.11686/cyxb2020030.
[25] 卓梦霞, 刘思文, 李春雨, 等. 镰刀菌属真菌毒素在植物和病原菌互作中的研究进展[J]. 广东农业科学, 2024, 51(3): 56-69. DOI: 10.16768/j.issn.1004-874X.2024.03.006.
[26] 唐永萍, 石亚莉, 贺军花, 等. 不同灰霉病抗性苹果果实中酚类物质代谢特征[J]. 西北植物学报, 2017, 37(3): 510-516. DOI: 10.7606/j.issn.1000-4025.2017.03.0510.
[27] 李丽, 何雪梅, 李昌宝, 等. 炭疽病菌侵染对香蕉采后品质变化及抗病相关酶活性的影响[J]. 现代食品科技, 2017, 33 (9): 83-90. DOI: 10.13982/j.mfst.1673-9078.2017.9.012.
[28] MONTALBINI P, BUONAURIO R. Effect of tobacco mosaic virus infection of levels of soluble superoxide dismutase (SOD) in Nicotiana tabacum and Nicotiana glutinosa leaves[J]. Plant Science, 1986, 47(2): 135-143. DOI: 10.1016/0168-9452(86)90060-9.
[29] ORACZ K, EL-MAAROUF-BOUTEAU H, KRANNER I, et al. The mechanisms involved in seed dormancy alleviation by hydrogen cyanide unravel the role of reactive oxygen species as key factors of cellular signaling during germination[J]. Plant Physiology, 2009, 150(1): 494-505. DOI: 10.1104/pp.109.138107.
[30] 张林林, 沈虎生, 杨冰, 等. 生防细菌HK11-9对黄瓜棒孢叶斑病的防病能力及其鉴定[J]. 生物技术通报, 2023,39(12): 209-218. DOI: 10.13560/j.cnki.biotech.bull.1985.2023-0407.
[31] 张雅君, 马姜明, 苏静, 等. 喀斯特石山克隆生长红背山麻杆的生理响应及耐受性评价[J]. 广西师范大学学报(自然科学版), 2018, 36(4): 151-158. DOI: 10.16088/j.issn.1001-6600.2018.04.019.
[32] 姜淑祯, 宋文静, 杨波, 等. 不同烤烟品种对青枯病胁迫的生理响应及抗性分析[J]. 中国烟草科学, 2022, 43(6): 25-30. DOI: 10.13496/j.issn.1007-5119.2022.06.004.
[33] XU E K, FAN G Q, NIU S Y, et al. Transcriptome-wide profiling and expression analysis of diploid and autotetraploid Paulownia tomentosa × Paulownia fortunei under drought stress[J]. PLoS One, 2014, 9(11): e113313. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0113313.
[34] 钱玥, 李思源, 饶良懿. 盐碱胁迫对菊芋渗透调节及抗氧化酶系统的影响[J]. 干旱区研究, 2023, 40(9): 1465-1471. DOI: 10.13866/j.azr.2023.09.10.
[35] 高建有, 匡美美, 罗庆, 等. 不同猕猴桃品种溃疡病抗性及其与枝条含糖量的关系[J]. 吉首大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 44(3): 66-72. DOI: 10.13438/j.cnki.jdzk.2023.03.010.
[36] 王佳星, 余国源, 谢瑛, 等. 土壤镉胁迫对紫金牛生理特性的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2019, 47(5): 25-29. DOI: 10.13759/j.cnki.dlxb.2019.05.006.
[37] 孙胜男, 刘凡, 曾令益, 等. 萝卜根肿病抗感品种间侵染过程及生理生化差异分析[J]. 中国油料作物学报, 2022, 44(3): 642-651. DOI: 10.19802/j.issn.1007-9084.2021094.
[38] 于雄胜, 江振岳, 张文英, 等. 谷子萌发及苗期生理生化指标对铅胁迫的响应[J]. 南方农业学报, 2022, 53(3): 795-802. DOI: 10.3969/j.issn.2095-1191.2022.03.021.
[39] PASTUSZAK J, SZCZERBA A, DZIURKA M, et al. Physiological and biochemical response to Fusarium culmorum infection in three durum wheat genotypes at seedling and full anthesis stage[J]. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 2021, 22(14): 7433. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22147433.
[40] 苏贺楠, 秦六月, 杨双娟, 等. 大白菜根肿病抗感品种间的侵染过程及生理生化差异分析[J]. 中国瓜菜, 2024, 37(6): 45-51. DOI: 10.16861/j.cnki.zggc.202423.0756.
[41] 于文波, 邢艺凡, 王雨, 等. 高粱对北方炭疽病的生理响应及应对措施[C]//中国作物学会. 第二十届中国作物学会学术年会论文摘要集. 沈阳:沈阳农业大学, 2023: 1. DOI: 10.26914/c.cnkihy.2023.082675.
[42] 马丹丹. 甘蓝类蔬菜根肿病抗性鉴定及相关生理生化的研究[D]. 石河子: 石河子大学, 2015.
[43] 张雅晰, 孙建苗, 王逍冬, 等. 7个匍匐翦股颖抗褐斑病的初步比较及生理响应[J]. 河北农业大学学报, 2024, 47(1): 58-65, 90. DOI: 10.13320/j.cnki.jauh.2024.0007.
[44] 王昶, 杨发荣, 李敏权, 等. 藜麦种质资源对霜霉病的抗性鉴定与评价[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(10): 2626-2634. DOI: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.10.012.
[45] 薛浩, 张锋, 张志宏, 等. “寒富”苹果与其同源四倍体耐盐差异研究[J]. 园艺学报, 2015, 42(5): 826-832. DOI: 10.16420/j.issn.0513-353x.2014-1042.
[46] 王雅美, 张蜀宁, 郑于莉, 等. 二、四倍体不结球白菜抗寒基因表达及生理生长特性[J]. 南京农业大学学报, 2014, 37(5): 41-46.
[47] 岳敏, 杨树国, 陈敬, 等. 半枝莲多倍体抗性生理指标研究[J]. 现代园艺, 2020, 43(19): 16-18. DOI: 10.14051/j.cnki.xdyy.2020.19.008.

Metrics

Viewed

Full text

Abstract

Cited

Shared

Discussed