Mini Review - Journal of Biotechnology and Phytochemistry (2023) Volume 7, Issue 1

Biotic stress and papillae composition in the plant cell wall

Sharmila Chowdary^*

Department of Biotechnology, Durham University, United Kingdom

*Corresponding Author:

Sharmila Chowdary
Department of Biotechnology
Durham University
United Kingdom
E-mail:sharmila@annauniv.edu

Received: 31-Jan-2023, Manuscript No. AAJBP-23-88995; Editor assigned: 02-Feb-2023, PreQC No. AAJBP-23-88995(PQ); Reviewed: 16-Feb-2023, QC No. AAJBP-23-88995; Revised: 21-Feb-2023, Manuscript No. AAJBP-23-88995(R); Published: 28-Feb-2023, DOI: 10.35841/aajbp-7.1.135

Citation: Chowdary S. Biotic stress and papillae composition in the plant cell wall. 2023;7(1):135

Abstract

Plant cell walls serve a variety of purposes. It serves as the plant's initial line of defence against diseases and offers a structural foundation for plant growth. The cell wall must also maintain some flexibility so that it can quickly remodel in response to developmental, biotic, or abiotic stimuli. When exposed to various challenges, genes encoding enzymes that can synthesise or hydrolyze parts of the plant cell wall exhibit variable expression, which suggests they may help plants adapt to stress by changing the composition of the cell wall.

Introduction

The plant cell wall is a sophisticated structure that performs a wide range of tasks over the course of the plant's life cycle. The cell wall offers flexibility to promote cell division, a metabolic scaffold to permit differentiation, and a pathological and environmental barrier to protect against stress in addition to maintaining structural integrity by resisting internal hydrostatic pressures. Numerous receptors, pores, and channels found in the cell wall control molecular mobility and reactions to short- and long-range elicitors such as hormones, carbohydrates, proteins, and RNAs. Plant cell wall construction varies greatly between species of plants as well as between different tissue types, which is consistent with its involvement in numerous processes [1].

The primary wall and secondary wall are two different wall types that surround plant cells. Young cells develop a dynamic primary wall during division that functions as a flexible and basic structural support, shielding the cell and mediating cell-cell connections. Between the primary wall and plasma membrane is the thicker, more resilient secondary wall, which forms later after the cell has stopped growing and dividing. The secondary wall is regarded as a critical adaptation that enables upright growth and resistance in terrestrial plants [2].

Biotic stress and papillae composition

Localized deposition of cell wall components, often referred to as papillae, is a frequent early defence mechanism developed in response to infection by a variety of bacterial, hemi-biotrophic, and biotrophic pathogens. At the site of infection, a tiny micrometer-scale structure develops that is frequently large enough to prevent fungal penetration. Due to the development of papillae at the infection sites, resistance is attained in a variety of non-host and host species at the pre-invasion stage. However, it is unclear exactly what papillae do. They might function as a physical barrier that successfully prevents pathogen entry or slows the penetration process so that other defence mechanisms can be engaged in advance. They may also serve as a chemical barrier for a range of chemical weapons, such as phytoalexins, defensins, and antimicrobial toxins, which are required to directly combat pathogens or stop the pathogens' production of enzymes that break down cell walls [3].

A new possibility to gather data on the three-dimensional alterations of polysaccharides at the infected locations of the cell wall has emerged with the recent development of cell wall-specific antibodies, carbohydrate binding modules, and small molecule stains. These novel methods demonstrate that cellulose, callose, and arabinoxylan are the main polysaccharides in barley papillae that are induced in response to the fungus Blumeria graminis f.sp. Hordei (Bgh). When compared to inefficient papillae, effective papillae successfully thwart Bgh's attempts to penetrate the skin have much larger quantities of these polysaccharides. The papillae are stratified, with an exterior layer made of cellulose and arabinoxylan and an inner core made of callose and arabinoxylan. The relationship of cellulose and arabinoxylan with penetration resistance creates new targets for papillae composition modification and the creation of lines with enhanced disease resistance. Previous research revealed potential gene expression profiles as papillae form and examined the potential defensive roles of these genes. The genes involved in the synthesis of the remaining papillae polysaccharides have not yet been defined, save from the role of the glucan synthase-like (GSL) gene family in the synthesis of papillary callose [4].

The plants often defend against necrotrophic diseases by strengthening the cell wall at the site of attack and altering the cell wall to make it more resistant to enzymatic digestion, which is a stronger but comparable response to biotrophic pathogens. The pathogen frequently uses this process to its advantage, causing the plant to change its cell wall so that it is easier to digest. Given the poisons' potential for extensive harm, a significant inflammatory response may also be anticipated due to a loss of cell wall integrity. Most necrotrophic infections enter plant tissues via stomata and open sores that spread among cell junctions [5].

Conclusion

Activities involving polysaccharides and cell walls that affect biotic and abiotic stress responses are highlighted, with a focus on those that may have a similar role in encouraging cell wall remodelling in response to abiotic stress or pathogen attack. Evidence from genetic and transgenic studies suggests that altering particular cell wall functions has a significant impact on stress tolerance. Similar gene families have been found to influence the impact of various biotic and abiotic stresses in a number of instances, both within and between species. This suggests that common mechanisms may have been used to target seemingly unrelated stress types.

References

1. Atmodjo MA, Hao Z, Mohnen D. Evolving views of pectin biosynthesis. Annu rev plant biol. 2013;64:747-79.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

2. Bellincampi D, Cervone F, Lionetti V. Plant cell wall dynamics and wall-related susceptibility in plant–pathogen interactions. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:228-29.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

3. Boddu J, Cho S, Kruger WM, et al. Transcriptome analysis of the barley-Fusarium graminearum interaction. Mol Plant Microbe. 2006;19(4):407-17.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

4. Bohlmann H, Sobczak M. The plant cell wall in the feeding sites of cyst nematodes. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:89.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref

5. Burton RA, Gidley MJ, Fincher GB. Heterogeneity in the chemistry, structure and function of plant cell walls. Nat Chem Biol. 2010;6(10):724-32.

Indexed at, Google Scholar, Cross Ref