Skip to main content
Download PDF

Mechanisms of systemic resistance to pathogen infection in plants and their potential application in forestry

BMC Plant Biology volume 23, Article number: 404 (2023) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The complex systemic responses of tree species to fight pathogen infection necessitate attention due to the potential for yield protection in forestry.

Results

In this paper, both the localized and systemic responses of model plants, such as Arabidopsis and tobacco, are reviewed. These responses were compared to information available that investigates similar responses in woody plant species and their key differences were highlighted. In addition, tree-specific responses that have been documented were summarised, with the critical responses still relying on certain systemic acquired resistance pathways. Importantly, coniferous species have been shown to utilise phenolic compounds in their immune responses. Here we also highlight the lack of focus on systemic induced susceptibility in trees, which can be important to forest health.

Conclusions

This review highlights the possible mechanisms of systemic response to infection in woody plant species, their potential applications, and where research may be best focused in future.

Peer Review reports

Background

Woody plants are critical to pulp and paper production worldwide but are threatened by feeding and infection by various pests and pathogens. Upon the induction of biotic threat, plants elicit a localized response, through phytohormone signalling, to combat attack at the site of infection [1]. A systemic response in distal tissues may also be stimulated through an integrated web of systemic acquired resistance and induced systemic resistance mechanisms [1, 2]. These basal defences serve as the frontline for the plant’s protection against future biotic challenges.

Even in plants that share the same basal defence pathways, a susceptible host may activate these defences too late, or at too low a level upon pest or pathogen attack [3]. In addition to preformed barriers, plants may activate induced resistance (IR) in response to a specific pathogen. The ability of a plant to alter its defence repertoire may lead to defence against current and future infections [4, 5]. The immune responses during these interactions, however, are highly complex and often differ between plants as they rely on the pathogen’s lifestyle and mode of infection [6]. These efforts made to fight infection can have long-lasting effects on plant immunity by priming responses against future infection or attack.

This phenomenon of systemic plant resistance was pioneered by the work of Joseph Kuć. He identified the involvement of oxalate [7], chitinases and peroxidases [8], among other metabolites and proteins, in the induction of systemic defences in plants. Many studies have since built upon this foundation, which have further reinforced the mechanisms of induced systemic responses in plants, as reviewed by Vlot et al. [9]. However, many questions remain, such as how and when systemic signalling is activated and how independent the different classes of systemic responses are. The lifestyle of tree species is fundamentally different to model organisms and trees often harbour unique secondary metabolites for host defence. This review explores the current knowledge about responses of plants to infection in systemic tissues, first focusing on mechanisms established in model organisms, and secondly on the less well-documented woody plants systemic responses to infection. Gaps are highlighted in the understanding of how woody plants tailor their systemic signalling mechanisms to magnify defences against future biotic stress challenges.

Localized responses in model organisms

To mount an effective defence against any pathogen, a plant must elicit the correct signalling pathways early in infection. Depending on the lifestyle of the pathogen, infection induces the plant to produce single or multiple hormone signals [10]. Evidence in model plants indicate that the salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (Et) pathways are strongly linked to the specificity of plant defence, as revealed by studies in their biosynthesis and downstream signaling during infection [6, 11]. SA provides plants with protection against biotrophic pathogens, which grow in and obtain nutrients from living cells, while JA and Et work together against necrotrophic organisms [6, 12], which grow in and obtain nutrients from dead or dying cells [6].

Upon recognition of an invading pathogen, host cells surrounding the site of infection receive communication of which defences should be activated. Phytohormone signalling consists of molecules that are rapidly induced before, during and after recognition. At the same time, non-specific signals, including reactive oxygen species (ROS), mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) and calcium ions (Ca2+), further aid in the induction of plant defence [13]. These responses are well-known in model species and have been reviewed in depth, thus this review will only provide a brief overview.

The salicylic acid pathway

For many years, SA has been known to induce resistance against plant diseases [14]. In Arabidopsis, the non-expressor of PR1 (NPR1) gene plays an important role in the activation of SA-responsive gene expression. The BTB/POZ domain and transcriptional activation motifs within NPR1 allow for its pivotal role in defence through the binding of TGA transcription factors (TFs) [15]. TGA2/5/6 factors are responsible for activating many downstream defence responses including the hypersensitive response (HR), pattern-triggered immunity (PTI), effector-triggered immunity (ETI) and, importantly, systemic responses [16]. Various WRKY TFs are also dependent on NPR1 in their positive and negative regulation of SA-responsive genes [17].

Upon pathogen challenge, the rapid increase in SA induces an oxidative burst that dissociates NPR1 into monomers [18]; it undergoes a conformational change that allows it to bind to SA which promotes NPR1 monomerization and transport to the nucleus [15]. The release of the NPR1 BTB/POZ inhibitory domain following the conformational change facilitates downstream gene activation [19]. The most common response downstream of NPR1 is the accumulation of pathogenesis-related proteins (PRs), which are collectively induced upon infection. First reported in Nicotiana tabacum [20], these proteins form various classes of antimicrobials [21]. PR1 (cysteine-rich secretory protein-related), PR2 (β-1,3-glucanase) and PR5 (thaumatin-like protein), along with their encoded domains, are used as reliable markers for a SA-associated response [22]. Another typical response of SA induction is HR, aided by ROS, which results in localized cell death at the site of infection to restrict a pathogens movement [23].

The jasmonic acid and ethylene pathways

Unlike SA, JA does not act as the inducer of downstream effects. Downstream plant responses rely on the interaction between the F-Box protein, CORONATINE INSENSITIVE 1 (COI1), and JASMONATE ZIM-domain containing transcriptional repressors (JAZ), which act as the receptor for JA-Ile, the bioactive form of JA [24, 25]. Downstream, the degradation of JAZ proteins triggers the release of the TF MYC2, which transcriptionally activates genes responsive to JA [26,27,28]. MYC2 has also been shown to influence SA-mediated defences, as it has dual regulatory roles in several points in the SA pathway [29]. This highlights the complex nature of crosstalk in plant immunity, as discussed below.

Mutually antagonistic to one other, MYC2 and Ethylene-Response-Factor 1 (ERF1) are induced upon wounding and necrotrophic pathogen infection, respectively. During wounding or herbivore attack, MYC2 activates genes, such as vegetative storage protein (VSP) [30]. Upstream, several lipoxygenase genes, such as LOX3, contribute to JA production in response to wounding [31, 32]. In contrast, the response to necrotrophic pathogens results in the induction of several AP2/ERF domain TFs. For example, TFs ERF1 and ORA59 work together with MED25 [33] to mediate this response through the production of proteins like plant defensin 1.2 (PDF1.2) [34, 35].

Crosstalk between salicylic acid, jasmonic acid/ethylene and other phytohormones

While the role of SA and JA/Et pathways in plant defence are well known, other major hormones including abscisic acid (ABA), gibberellins, auxins, cytokinins, brassinosteroids and strigolactones also play a role in plant defence [36,37,38]. Hormonal crosstalk is particularly important when it comes to multi-attacker situations, as it allows the plant to prioritize the correct defence pathways while limiting the cost of fitness associated with induced immunity [39].

It is generally viewed that SA and JA/Et act antagonistically to one another to provide resistance to biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens respectively [6]. While most studies have shown these pathways to be antagonistic, neutral and synergistic interactions do exist, as reviewed by Aerts et al. [40]. One of these studies showed that Arabidopsis leaves, treated with SA, MeJA, or both, resulted in co-clustering of hormone profiles across all three conditions, providing evidence for the coregulation of SA and JA suggestive of their synergistic interaction [41]. Both positive and negative regulators at multiple steps in either pathway serve as potential targets for the crosstalk, and these have been thoroughly reviewed [42, 43].

Systemic responses in model organisms

Not only does IR activate defence at the localized tissues, but it also activates systemic responses in distal undamaged tissues, termed systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [44]. This serves as a form of longer-term immunity in distal tissues to prevent future infection by the same pathogen. The resulting immunity is typically effective against biotrophic pathogens, lasts anywhere from days to an entire lifetime, and is transgenerational [45, 46]. Systemic responses elicited by root–associated beneficial bacteria and fungi is termed induced systemic resistance (ISR) and shares many features with the SAR pathway [47].

Systemic acquired resistance

Localized events and mobile signalling in systemic acquired resistance

The establishment of SAR requires that signals generated at the site of infection are transported to and subsequently recognised in systemic tissues, typically via PTI and ETI [48]. The current model for SAR suggests that various compounds fall either under the regulation of SA or act independently in other pathways [49, 50]. In addition to the compounds discussed below that physically move through the vascular tissue, volatile compounds, such as methyl-SA (MeSA) and monoterpenes, also move to distal tissues indirectly through the air [51,52,53].

While SA is transported through the vascular tissue as a possible mobile signal [54], it may also play a role in the perception and/or propagation of the mobile signal [55, 56]. Regardless, the induction of SAR relies heavily on either the synthesis or accumulation of SA, and sometimes both, in systemic tissues [57]. In the past, MeSA has been shown to be a notable propagator of SAR (Fig. 1a); its conversion to SA is useful to the induction of systemic responses to infection [9]. However, in Arabidopsis inoculated with Pseudomonas syringae, very little MeSA that was produced was retained in plant tissue [58] and in Arabidopsis lines wherein the production of MeSA was knocked out, SAR was not compromised [58]. Thus, it appears that MeSA is associated with SAR, but is not a driving force behind it.

SA is not the only phytohormone involved in the induction of SAR; Pipecolic acid (Pip) is rapidly induced and is linked to the systemic accumulation of SA necessary for SAR [59, 60]. Once induced by the increase in SA due to pathogen challenge, Pip is synthesized in two reactions mediated by AGD2-like Defence Response Protein 1 (ALD1) and SAR-DEFICIENT 4 (SARD4) [60,61,62]. Importantly, while the production of Pip is not required for signal generation, its production via ALD1 is necessary for perception in systemic tissues [63]. Pip serves as a secondary messenger for SA in SAR in order to promptly trigger other responses in distal tissues. In parallel with SA, Pip regulates ROS and nitric oxide (NO) to further activate SAR [63].

Pip is a biosynthetic precursor of N-hydroxypipecolic acid (NHP), another key player in SAR that serves as the bioactive signal in the Pip/NHP signaling pathway ([62], [43]; Fig. 1a). The induction of SAR by NHP occurs via the accumulation of both NHP and Pip, however Pip must be converted to bioactive NHP by flavin mono-oxygenase 1 (FMO1; 64). This consequently stimulates the activity of TGA TFs, which promote the action of SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED RESISTANCE DEFICIENT 1 (SARD1) and CALMODULIN-BINDING PROTEIN 60 g (CBP60g) [65]. Notably, NHP and SA work concurrently to facilitate a stronger activation of SAR [66, 67]. The SA receptor NPR1 is also critical to the NHP-triggered SAR and transcriptional responses. While Pip is a mobile signal for SAR, NHP functions as an inducer of defence responses. Zeier [68] has thoroughly reviewed the downstream effects of NHP in systemic resistance.

Previous research has suggested that the SA, NHP and azelaic acid (AzA) pathways run parallel to each other [69]. However, latest findings suggest that the SA and Pip pathways are interdependent and act synergistically [9]. SARD1 and CBP60g, under the control of CALMODULIN BINDING TF 1–3 (CAMTA), regulate the biosynthesis and positive feedback of both SA and NHP biosynthesis [70, 71]. There is evidence to support that the accumulation of NHP-induced NPR1 can be involved in regulating the synthesis of SA, NHP and their regulators, SARD1 and CBP60g [70]. Also reviewed by Zeier is the mechanism by which SAR is terminated via glycosylation of both NHP and SA to maintain a primed immune state [68]. Both phytohormones undergo glycosylation by the same glycosyltransferase to produce inactive glucosides of NHP and SA to terminate SAR. These glucosides keep plants in an uninduced, basal immune state in preparation for future pathogen attack [72, 73].

Moreover, nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide (NAD+), while less predominantly observed in SAR, has been shown to be transported to systemic tissues to stimulate defence responses [74]. Exogenous application of NAD(P) + was shown to stimulate SAR-like responses in Arabidopsis, which was reinforced by the observation that the induction of SAR-like responses were inhibited in deletion mutants of LecRK-VI.2, a NAD(P)+-binding receptor [74]. Additionally, AzA has also been shown to be involved in systemic defence, via upstream SA and NHP signalling [75]. The production of glycerol-3-phosphate (G3P) is also implicated in AzA-mediated resistance and G3P does not act independently of AzA [76, 77]. As well as being induced by NHP/Pip, AzA may support SAR by acting in its positive feedback systemically [63, 75, 78].

Systemic aspects of systemic acquired resistance

Systemic resistance in SAR is activated upon recognition of the mobile signal [79]. While very little is known about how the mobile signal is perceived, lectins act downstream of Pip/NHP and G3P (Fig. 1a). Specifically, LEGUME LECTIN LIKE PROTEIN 1 (LLP1) is necessary for the perception of SAR [53, 80]. Once recognized, the downstream processes of SAR such as the production of SA and the NPR1-mediated activation of PR gene expression are shared with the plant’s localized response [22, 81]. The induction of NPR1 through Pip seems to provide positive feedback to both the synthesis of SA and NHP, as well as their regulators [70]. Additional inactive forms of SA stored in vacuoles may be readily hydrolysed into active SA and mobilised into other cellular locations [82].

Exclusively in distal tissues, NPR1 undergoes phosphorylation to co-activate downstream gene expression [83] and interacts with various TFs, including TGAs and WRKYs, to co-activate downstream expression [22, 69, 84, 85]. Surprisingly, the previously mentioned phosphorylation acts to mediate the degradation of NPR1 to fully activate SAR genes [86]. Klessig et al. [87] proposed that NPR1 is active in systemic tissues due to the more moderate accumulation of SA compared to localized sites. These intermediate levels of SA would be high enough to disrupt the interaction of NPR1 with NPR4 but too low to promote NPR3-associated degradation [87], leaving the cells in a primed state for rapid response to infection.

Induced systemic resistance

Much like SAR, ISR also activates defence in systemic tissues, typically through the actions of beneficial microbes in the rhizosphere [47]. Several seminal experiments established ISR to be mediated by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), typically within the Pseudomonas genera [88, 89]. This phenomenon is referred to as priming, where changes in gene expression are seen only after a secondary pathogen is inoculated in systemic tissues. These changes normally occur much faster than if the tissues were not induced with ISR. As reviewed by Pieterse et al. [47], several other studies revealed that various PGPR and plant growth-promoting fungi (PGPF) rely on JA/Et signalling in planta, thus ISR is dependent on the production of these phytohormones (Fig. 1b).

Unlike the SAR pathway, the mobile signals generated in the roots required to be translocated to systemic tissues have not yet been identified [47, 90]. In the search for mobile signals, various genes and molecules, apart from JA/Et signalling at the root interface, have been identified. MYB72 was identified as a root-specific TF necessary for the onset of ISR induced by P. fluorescens WCS417r and Trichoderma [91, 92]. Additionally, study on the metabolome of non-mycorrhizal and mycorrhizal plants during pathogen infection have indicated that improved resistance to infection at the shoots may be mediated by lignans and oxylipins (Fig. 1b), which are suggested to contribute to the mobile active signals for primed immune responses in ISR [93]. Importantly, in plants where ISR has been induced, JA/Et-dependent gene expression was induced only after subsequent challenge with a secondary pathogen [91]; instead of large-scale transcriptional reprogramming, distal tissues become more sensitive to changes in JA/Et and become primed for a faster, stronger secondary response (Fig. 1b).

Despite the disparate mechanisms of ISR and SAR, studies have revealed that their molecular mechanisms of signalling may not be so distinct [94,95,96,97]. Studies in model organisms have identified AzA, LLP2 and G3P to be involved in the induction of ISR, as depicted in Fig. 1b [94, 95, 98, 99]. A possible explanation for ISR also being active against (hemi-)biotrophic microbes is the reliance of this signalling on G3P, AZI1 and LLP2 independent of SA [9] and the downstream responses of ISR are reliant on the non-SA related function of NPR1 [100]. Well summarized by Vlot et al. [9]., various examples of ISR also implicate the role of SA and seem to not conform to the SA-JA antagonism. However, the cytosolic role of NPR1 in ISR distinctly separates the downstream signalling from SAR [101, 102].

The interaction between the systemic acquired resistance and induced systemic resistance pathways

SAR appears to be associated with the SA defence pathway, while ISR appears to be associated with the JA/Et pathway. While SA and JA/Et tend to be antagonistic to each other [6], this may not have the same effect when it comes to systemic tissues. Little is understood about the role of SA-JA crosstalk in ISR, but synergism is thought to play a role, depending on the inducer and the host [103, 104]. Importantly, NPR1 serves as an integral part of differentiating ISR and SAR. For example, sumoylation of NPR1 activated by SA shifts the association of NPR1 from WRKY70, which acts as repressor of JA defences while promoting SA defences [105], to TGA3, a transcriptional activator [106]. The physical location of NPR1 in the cytosol or nucleus also plays a role in which pathway is activated [101].

A novel interaction between SA and JA signalling was identified by Singh and Nandi [107]. Prior to the study, OXIDATION-RELATED ZINC FINGER1 (OZF1) was known to be involved in NPR1-related and -independent SA signalling. When OZF1 was overexpressed in Arabidopsis infected with Botrytis cinerea, this study identified that there was an increased expression of JA-responsive genes. More specifically, expression of PDF1.2, THI2.1, and VSP2 was upregulated in response to this challenge. Interestingly, SA treatment was also able to trigger the expression of AtOZF1 in AtOZF1 mutants [107]. These findings underline the highly intricate interactions between the phytohormones involved in plant immunity.

In 2000, SAR and ISR were formally classed as synonymous [2]. However, this study and many before class systemic responses as SAR when the systemic responses are elicited by a pathogen and/or are SA-dependent, and ISR when these responses are elicited by beneficial microbes and/or are independent of SA [47]. The complexity of SAR and ISR and their crosstalk makes it difficult to fully separate these processes, thus the classification of systemic resistance often depends on the species of the host and microbial inducer [9]. The seemingly similar mechanisms underlying ISR and SAR warrant extensive further investigation to identify mechanisms that discern them.

Systemic induced susceptibility

Not all microbial interactions eliciting systemic responses result in immunity. Processes like mechanical wounding may lead to localised resistance but systemic susceptibility [108]. Termed induced systemic susceptibility (ISS) or systemic induced susceptibility (SIS) depending on different studies, systemic immune signalling has been shown to also result in increased susceptibility in plants and its mechanisms remain elusive. SIS can be activated at various points within plant defence pathways and depends highly on the host genotype, timing of defences and the lifestyle of secondary pathogens [108].

In most cases the underlying genes targeted during susceptibility are crucial to the distinction of different defence pathways. The TF WRKY70 is targeted and increased by Fusarium oxysporum and results in the suppression of SA responses and susceptibility [109]. In some instances, SIS may be due to the shifting of defences from one signalling pathway to another i.e., from an SA/JA balance towards JA, which may provide resistance to other challengers, such as herbivory, at the cost of resistance to microbial pathogens [110]. Regardless of the specific changes at various levels within the plant immune system, SIS results in the change of the microbial community to induce secondary infection [111].

Priming underlies all known forms of systemic resistance

The first evidence of defence priming being implicated in induced immunity came in 1982 [4], yet the confirmation of priming in all types of systemic immunity came much later [112]. The molecular mechanisms of priming overarch much of the localized and systemic defence response. As reviewed by Reimer-Michalski and Conrath [113], priming can result in the accumulation of PRRs, dormant signalling cascades or TFs. All result in the faster recognition of infection and activation of downstream defence responses upon future pathogen infections [113, 114].

In Arabidopsis, the induction of SAR by Pseudomonas syringae infection facilitates priming to allow for such enhanced defence responses to secondary infection. SA is critical to the priming of immune responses through its involvement in suppressing systemic JA responses, downregulation of photosynthesis in distal leaves and downregulation of growth [66]. SA, alongside Pip/NHP, also contributes to the priming of distal defence responses, including PR1 and camalexin accumulation. Pip contributes to defence priming in a SA-independent manner, through enhanced activation of ALD1 and FMO1 [66]. Importantly, FMO1 is responsible for the mediation of NHP biosynthesis; increased NHP levels in systemic tissues promotes NPR1-dependent transcriptional reprogramming to prime immune responses [67].

An important aspect of priming is that genes primed for a response will only be upregulated upon a secondary challenge with a pathogen [115]. Using multiple priming RNA-Seq datasets, researchers have been able to identify a conserved set of transcriptional changes indicative of the primed state within Arabidopsis [116]. These changes include the upregulation of MAPKs, TFs that enable defence (such as WRKY18), and genes related to monoterpene synthesis (like GPS1). The data meta-analysis included RNA-Seq data generated from Vitis vinifera treated with the beneficial microorganism Trichoderma harzianum T39; transcriptional reprogramming of systemic tissues to prime immunity occurred, including the enhanced expression of PRs and stilbene synthesis [117]. Additionally, RNA-Seq data of priming in leaf tissue of A. thaliana highlighted the importance of NHP-mediated mechanisms, as described above [66]. These findings have been reinforced by later studies, including one wherein exogenous NHP treatment induced SAR-like responses via NPR1 and facilitated a priming response in distal tissues in Arabidopsis. This study also identified the involvement of several TGA TFs that are critical to the NHP-associated transcriptional reprogramming that occurs during priming [118].

Priming has been associated with chromatin remodelling by histone regulation, suggesting another possible mechanism in TF signalling and downstream gene expression that is inherited [115]. Three key stages exist in this process; (i) priming (perception of a stimulus), (ii) challenged primed state (after secondary infection) and (iii) primed state through transgenerational descent [119]. In the first stage, changes in primary metabolites, such as sugars and amino acids, are most common. Following a secondary infection, in the second stage, there is a distinct reliance of the plant on SA and MAPK pathways, in addition to the accumulation of ROS and PR1. Subsequently, the transgenerational primed state is reliant on epigenetic modifications that are passed from parent to progeny [119].

How do responses differ in tree species?

Much like their herbaceous counterparts, woody species share many aspects of the plant immune system. However, due to differences in lifestyle and properties, the mechanisms are likely to differ. The induced defence system is particularly relevant for tree species due to lower resource costs when compared to constitutive defence [120, 121]. The long lifespan of a tree, compared to the relatively shorter lifespan of their pathogens, makes the rapidly induced nature of the broad-spectrum resistance of systemic resistance an attractive mechanism to investigate [120]. Most studies on systemic resistance in trees have focused on coniferous species with a lesser focus on the angiosperm species. Figure 1 provides a simplified overview of the known and potential systemic responses a tree could induce based on various interactions.

In tree species, the understanding of the different types of systemic resistance is far less understood. While many examples of SAR and ISR under the control of SA and JA, respectively, occur in trees, trees also exhibit unique types of systemic resistance, such as systemic induced resistance (SIR). SIR, which is typically elicited by necrotrophic organisms, is viewed separately to SAR. Their distinction is because of the unknown signalling mechanisms of SIR, as depicted in Fig. 1c [120, 122, 123]. The involvement of phytohormones in SIR also remains unknown, thus the need for a distinct type of systemic response.

Although there are noticeable differences between the defence mechanisms in trees and model species, there are certainly identifiable similarities. Similarly to herbaceous plants, various PRs also play a role in tree defence [124]. While most studies have focused on the role of PRs in localized defence, far less have studied their role in systemic defence. One study identified a systemic increase in peroxidase (PR9) in response to root infection of Picea abies seedlings by Ceratocystis polonica [125]. NPR1 has also been implicated in systemic resistance. Stable antimicrobial peptide treatment of citrus trees to prevent Candidatus Liberibacter asiaticus infection resulted in an increased level of expression of NPR1, including in uninfected trees, suggestive of a primed systemic response [126].

Fig. 1
figure 1

Observed metabolic and molecular responses from different tree and model species interactions, including (a) Systemic acquired resistance, (b) induced systemic resistance, and (c) systemic induced resistance. SAR: systemic acquired resistance; ISR: induced systemic resistance; SIR: systemic induced resistance; HR: hypersensitive response; MeSA: methyl-salicylic acid; Pip: pipecolic acid; NHP: N-hydroxypipecolic acid; AzA: azelaic acid; G3P: glycerol-3-phosphate; SA: salicylic acid; PR: pathogenesis-related proteins; JA: jasmonic acid; MeJA: methyl-jasmonate; JA/Et: jasmonic acid/ethylene; NPR1: NONEXPRESSOR OF PR GENES 1; NO: nitric oxide; ROS: reactive oxygen species; PR proteins: pathogenesis-related proteins; SARD1: SAR deficient 1; CBP60g: calmodulin-binding protein 60 g; MAPK: mitogen-activated kinase; LLP: legume lectin-like protein; PDF1.2: plant defensin 1.2; ORA59: octadecanoid-responsive AP2/ERF 59; MED25: MEDIATOR25; AZI1: azelaic acid induced 1. Positive feedback is indicated by +

Full size image

Systemic resistance in trees

In herbaceous plants, systemic signalling mechanisms have mostly been studied through the use of mutants, grafting and transgenic approaches [58, 127, 128]. While great strides have been made in the genetic engineering of trees to study their signalling mechanisms, relatively low transformation efficiencies and difficulties in regeneration means that its use in research is still limited [129]. Most studies have relied on other methods to determine endogenous signals in systemic responses. Most commonly, the application of exogenous inducers of systemic defence i.e., SA and MeJA, followed by observing tree responses, is used. Alternatively, sub-lethal inoculation is used to elicit a response for analysis. Most of these studies have focused on the inducers’ effect at the localized tissue, which often exhibit unique defences not shared with their herbaceous counterparts as previously described. Other studies have identified signalling molecules induced in systemic tissues which give insight into how trees may share systemic signalling molecules with herbaceous plants.

Examples of systemic resistance in conifer species

SIR was first described in a variety of Pinus spp.; in-field observations of P. radiata showed a SIR phenotype of lesions caused by Fusarium circinatum decreasing over time [122, 130]. Another classic example of SIR in conifers is the interaction of P. nigra with Diplodia pinea, which is characterized by increases in phenolics, stilbenes and lignin deposition, shown in Fig. 1c [131, 132]. Later studies confirmed the association of increases in lignin and other phenolic compounds with SIR [133]. Importantly, this pattern is not observed equally across tree tissues. The concentration of monoterpenes and diterpenes, among others, have been shown to remain at very low levels in constitutive and systemic phloem, whereas at the localised point of infection, levels increased by up to 300-fold [134, 135]. Elicitation of stronger localised than systemic responses suggests that the cost of priming for later attack is too great.

While pine species tend to respond to pests and pest-associated fungi in a very localized manner, their response to necrotrophs differ. When inoculated with Sphaeropsis sapinea and Diplodia scrobiculata, P. nigra has been shown to induce lignification and the production of several phenolic compounds and secondary metabolites in systemic tissues, which ultimately reduced disease severity upon a re-infection with the same pathogen, respectively [132]. Over time, these observations have been substantiated through phytohormone profiling and more extensive metabolite and phytochemical analysis [136, 137].

It is notable that SIR and SIS have been shown to occur concurrently in P. nigra in a bi-directional and organ-dependent manner, whereby induction at the stem base resulted in SIS at shoot tips, while induction at the lower stem resulted in SIR in the upper stem [132]. This could be explained by the energy costs of induced systemic resistance during infection; should the induction event severely damage the host’s defences, energy reserves would be depleted and result in SIS. This is known as the SIR hypothesis. Sherwood and Bonello [138] aimed to identify where and when SIS would occur instead of SIR in P. nigra, as defined by the SIR hypothesis. SIR appeared to increase in strength over time in stems, while only SIS was observed in the shoots. This unique phenomenon has not been studied in other tree or plant species but is an interesting avenue for further study.

In addition to the seminal work on SIR, various Pinus spp. have exhibited reliance on more traditional pathways of defence as well [139, 140]. Possible SAR and ISR have been observed in conifers, including in P. radiata, where Clonostachys rosea was shown to induce ISR against the fungal pathogen F. circinatum [141] and in P. albicaulis, where pine transcriptomes of MeJA- and Cronartium ribicola-induced systemic resistance were compared [142]. The type of resistance elicited by C. ribicola overlapped significantly with the MeJA-induced ISR. Additionally, many of the significantly differentially expressed genes were found to correlate well with other Pinus genes, suggesting lineage-specific gene expression. These genes mainly belonged to the PR genes and secondary metabolism such as phenolics and terpenes [142]. These findings are reinforced by a later study where P. sylvestris treated with JA identified increases in total phenol content and carotenoid content [143].

Similarly, the systemic responses elicited by MeJA in various Picea spp. have also been investigated. In Norway spruce (P. abies), the induction of systemic defences through fungal infection or MeJA treatment was able to protect the trees against insect damage [144]. In addition to changes in terpene levels, the levels of chitinase (Chi4) and peroxidase (PX3) were significantly upregulated upon biotic challenge with the fungus Endoconidiophora polonica or MeJA, compared to the control (Fig. 1c). Fungal infection resulted in a rapid increase of defence genes that was prolonged to provide protection upon secondary exposure to insects. In contrast, MeJA-treated trees showed a minimal increase in these genes prior to insect exposure and showed rapid increases to far higher rates after exposure. Surprisingly, while the induction of defences led to more insect entry holes, infestation severity was limited [144].

Researchers have probed further into understanding the mechanisms of the MeJA priming phenomenon in P. abies [145]. By using MeJA as a pre-treatment followed by wounding to elicit defence responses, the effect of MeJA priming on subsequent resistance could be observed. Upon the stimulus of wounding, various terpenes and JA, but not SA, were significantly upregulated. Interestingly, following MeJA treatment, evidence of epigenetic modulation was observed as a possible link to the preparation phase of priming. Unlike terpene genes previously identified as important in this interaction, the priming of PR genes, such as chitinase, under MeJA treatment was further validated [145].

It is important to note that plant responses to the application of phytohormones does not always match the responses elicited when biologically induced. This was illustrated in P. contorta populations that had historically been exposed to Grosmannia clavigera could distinguish between the pathogen and artificially applied JA, as reflected in the minimal induction of defensive monoterpenes in MeJA-treated plants [146]. Contrastingly, populations that had not been exposed to the pathogen could not distinguish between G. clavigera infection and external JA application, likely a result of co-evolution of the plant and pathogen over time.

Furthermore, the induced response of the tree to a secondary biotic stress is not only determined by the inciting agent, but the manner in which SIR is incited as well; plant responses have been shown to vary, dependent on whether they are mechanically-, herbivore- or infection-induced [147]. For example, prior infection of Larix decidua with Mycosphaerella laricinia resulted in SIR, demonstrated by reduced Larch sawfly feeding one year later, whereas prior herbivore- and mechanically-induced defoliation did not [147].

Examples of systemic responses in angiosperm species

Far less research has been conducted on systemic responses in angiosperm trees, but it is logical to presume that a similar evolution to the conifers may have occurred. It is, however, expected that the trees have distinctive qualities that make the response of angiosperm species disparate from conifers. While conifer species are economically important, as are angiosperms and thus they remain valuable to study. From the very limited studies available we hope to elucidate the gaps in the understanding of tree-specific systemic defence in angiosperms.

In Eucalyptus, the role of SA is critical to the resistance and susceptibility to infection by Chrysoporthe austroafricana. It has been found that the external application of SA on a highly susceptible hybrid of E. grandis is able to induce resistance similar to the level of a moderately resistant hybrid of the same species [148]. Further validating the role of SA, Mangwanda et al. [149] showed that basal levels of SA in resistant trees were inherently higher. Upon C. austroafricana infection, transcriptome profiling over a time course of infection revealed differences between the clones with a possible delay in the response of the susceptible clone. Investigation of the differentially expressed genes revealed support for the up-regulation of SA signalling and SAR, but these were restricted to the resistant clone [149].

SAR has also been observed in Poplar [152]; the interaction of Paulownia tomentosa with Botryosphaeria dothidea results in the systemic accumulation of SA and MeSA in both localized and systemic tissues. Active manipulation of SA levels through MeSA breakdown in systemic tissues is also observed. The downstream expression of PR-1, PR-2, PR-5 and PR-10, classic markers of SA-related downstream responses, are also up-regulated [152]. The role of SA in P. tomentosa-B. dothidea was further validated as a prominent phenolic compound when compared to a susceptible species [153]. Moreover, functional genetics has begun to reveal the role of some components of SAR in Poplar, such as the role of salicylate methyltransferase in the production of MeSA from SA [154].

Evidently SAR is a vital component of systemic defence in angiosperms, as argument has been strengthened by proteomics studies [155]. However, evidence for the induction of JA/Et signaling and other resistive mechanisms suggests that it is not a solely SAR-like response that is induced by E. grandis and that it may employ various systemic responses, including ISR and SIR. For example, ISR induced by PGPR has also been observed in Eucalyptus species. E. grandis treated with Streptomyces led to improved resistance to later infection by Botrytis cinerea [151]. Similarly, PGPRs, specifically Bacillus subtilis, have also been reported to promote ISR in apple trees, to prevent Fusarium spp. infection [156]. These responses have been further confirmed in other apple rootstocks planted in soil with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; several defence-related enzymes, including superoxide dismutase and other antioxidants, were upregulated in distal tissues [157].

The induced defence elicited by Streptomyces sp. PM9 strain pre-treatment was evaluated in E. grandis and E. globulus [151]. Subsequently, pre-treated plants were also inoculated with B. cinerea. The symptoms of B. cinerea were delayed in E. grandis but not E. globulus. This was attributed to the relatively earlier upregulation of peroxidase activity prior to symptom development as well as the synthesis of phenolics such as flavonoids and 2-hydroxybenzoic acid, a structural analogue of SA [151]. In oak, pre-treatment of the roots with the bacterial strain AcH 505 reduced the infection of oak powdery mildew on leaves of infected trees [150]. Not only did AcH 505 prime oak for a heightened response, the responses seemed to involve components of both ISR and SAR, along with regulation by ABA [150].

Systemic induced susceptibility in trees

While most studies of systemic responses in trees investigate resistance, it is important to note that SIS may still occur. Organ-dependent development of systemic defences in P. nigra revealed that while SIR is expressed in some systemic tissues, others develop SIS [132]. Sherwood and Bonello [138] further postulated that all examples of SIR can result in SIS over time if enough damage is inflicted on the host. This study modelled the interaction of P. nigra with D. sapinea and validated their hypothesis [138]. While the point at which systemic resistance can become systemic susceptibility can be modelled, no information regarding the molecular mechanisms of this phenomenon have been elucidated. It is important to remember the complex nature of systemic responses and their underlying signalling pathways. The development of any systemic response depends on: (1) the inducer of defences which may be living micro-organisms or chemicals, (2) the nature of the resulting systemic responses, and (3) the lifestyle of the additional pathogen challenge.

Conclusion

Systemic responses provide broad-spectrum resistance to a variety of pests and pathogens in trees. Most critically, the core genes and phytohormones that are uniquely deployed by trees to sustain a systemic resistance to common pests and pathogens remain unclear. These responses can be particularly useful in the management of disease in trees, as they can be managed and manipulated to generate more resistant and robust trees in forestry. The use of SA and JA analogues, among others, has effectively stimulated systemic resistance in plants, preparing them to respond to biotic threat [158, 159]. However, implementing these control strategies is challenging due to the potential for their off-target effects in-field, thereby posing an environmental risk. In addition, frequent chemical treatment is restricted by regulatory bodies, such as the Forest Stewardship Council. Another concern is that the efficacy and practicality of applying these strategies on a larger scale have not been confirmed. Nonetheless, these forest management approaches hold potential for long-term benefits. Trees have long lifespans, making it more likely that they will face multiple threats during their lifetime. Therefore, properly enhancing their defence mechanisms through priming can contribute to long-term protection.

Data Availability

Not applicable.

Abbreviations

ABA:

Abscisic acid

AzA:

Azelaic acid

CKs:

Cytokinins

Et:

Ethylene

ETI:

Effector-triggered immunity

G3P:

Glycerol-3-phosphate

HR:

Hypersensitive response

IR:

Induced response

ISR:

Induced systemic resistance

JA:

Jasmonic acid

MAPKs:

Mitogen-activated protein kinases

MeJA:

Methyl-jasmonate

MeSA:

Methyl-salicylate

NOs:

Nitric oxides

NHP:

N-hydroxypipecolic acid

PGPF:

Plant growth-promoting fungi

PGPR:

Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria

Pip:

Pipecolic acid

PRs:

Pathogenesis-related proteins

PTI:

Pattern-triggered immunity

ROS:

Reactive oxygen species

SA:

Salicylic acid

SAR:

Systemic acquired resistance

SIR:

Systemic induced resistance

SIS:

Systemic induced susceptibility

TF:

Transcription factor

References

  1. Li P, Lu YJ, Chen H, Day B. The lifecycle of the plant immune system. CRC Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2020;39(1):72–100.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Hammerschmidt R, Métraux JP, van Loon LC. Inducing resistance: a summary of papers presented at the First International Symposium on Induced Resistance to Plant Diseases, Corfu, May 2000. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2001;107(1):1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Hammerschmidt R. Chapter 5: Systemic acquired resistance. Advances in Botanical Research. 51: Academic Press; 2009:173–222.

  4. Kuć J. Induced immunity to plant disease. Bioscience. 1982;32(11):854–60.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hammerschmidt R. Induced disease resistance: how do induced plants stop pathogens? Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 1999;55(2):77–84.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Glazebrook J. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43:205–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Doubrava NS, Dean RA, Kuć J. Induction of systemic resistance to anthracnose caused by Colletotrichum lagenarium in cucumber by oxalate and extracts from spinach and rhubarb leaves. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 1988;33(1):69–79.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Dalisay RF, Kuć JA. Persistence of induced resistance and enhanced peroxidase and chitinase activities in cucumber plants. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 1995;47(5):315–27.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Vlot AC, Sales JH, Lenk M, Bauer K, Brambilla A, Sommer A, et al. Systemic propagation of immunity in plants. New Phytol. 2021;229(3):1234–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. De Vos M, Van Oosten VR, Van Poecke RM, Van Pelt JA, Pozo MJ, Mueller MJ, et al. Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2005;18(9):923–37.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Vlot AC, Dempsey DA, Klessig DF. Salicylic acid, a multifaceted hormone to combat disease. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2009;47:177–206.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Thomma BP, Penninckx IA, Broekaert WF, Cammue BP. The complexity of disease signaling in Arabidopsis. Curr Opin Immunol. 2001;13(1):63–8.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Meng X, Zhang S. MAPK cascades in plant disease resistance signaling. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2013;51:245–66.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. White RF. Acetylsalicylic acid (aspirin) induces resistance to tobacco mosaic virus in tobacco. Virology. 1979;99(2):410–2.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Wu Y, Zhang D, Chu JY, Boyle P, Wang Y, Brindle ID, et al. The Arabidopsis NPR1 protein is a receptor for the plant defense hormone salicylic acid. Cell Rep. 2012;1(6):639–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zhang Y, Tessaro MJ, Lassner M, Li X. Knockout analysis of Arabidopsis transcription factors TGA2, TGA5, and TGA6 reveals their redundant and essential roles in systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell. 2003;15(11):2647–53.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Wang D, Amornsiripanitch N, Dong X. A genomic approach to identify regulatory nodes in the transcriptional network of systemic acquired resistance in plants. PLoS Pathog. 2006;2(11):e123.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Tada Y, Spoel SH, Pajerowska-Mukhtar K, Mou Z, Song J, Wang C, et al. Plant immunity requires conformational changes [corrected] of NPR1 via S-nitrosylation and thioredoxins. Science. 2008;321(5891):952–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Ding Y, Sun T, Ao K, Peng Y, Zhang Y, Li X, et al. Opposite roles of salicylic acid receptors NPR1 and NPR3/NPR4 in transcriptional regulation of plant immunity. Cell. 2018;173(6):1454–67e15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. van Loon LC, van Kammen A. Polyacrylamide disc electrophoresis of the soluble leaf proteins from Nicotiana tabacum var. “Samsun” and “Samsun NN”. II changes in protein constitution after infection with tobacco mosaic virus. Virology. 1970;40(2):190–211.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Sels J, Mathys J, De Coninck BM, Cammue BP, De Bolle MF. Plant pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins: a focus on PR peptides. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2008;46(11):941–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Fu ZQ, Dong X. Systemic acquired resistance: turning local infection into global defense. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2013;64:839–63.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Noman A, Aqeel M, Qari SH, Al Surhanee AA, Yasin G, Alamri S, et al. Plant hypersensitive response vs pathogen ingression: death of few gives life to others. Microb Pathog. 2020;145:104224.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Fonseca S, Chini A, Hamberg M, Adie B, Porzel A, Kramell R, et al. (+)-7-iso-jasmonoyl-l-isoleucine is the endogenous bioactive jasmonate. Nat Chem Biol. 2009;5(5):344–50.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Sheard LB, Tan X, Mao H, Withers J, Ben-Nissan G, Hinds TR, et al. Jasmonate perception by inositol-phosphate-potentiated COI1-JAZ co-receptor. Nature. 2010;468(7322):400–5.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chini A, Fonseca S, Fernández G, Adie B, Chico JM, Lorenzo O, et al. The JAZ family of repressors is the missing link in jasmonate signalling. Nature. 2007;448(7154):666–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Thines B, Katsir L, Melotto M, Niu Y, Mandaokar A, Liu G, et al. JAZ repressor proteins are targets of the SCF(COI1) complex during jasmonate signalling. Nature. 2007;448(7154):661–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Liu H, Timko MP. Jasmonic acid signaling and molecular crosstalk with other phytohormones. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(6).

  29. Gautam JK, Giri MK, Singh D, Chattopadhyay S, Nandi AK. MYC2 influences salicylic acid biosynthesis and defense against bacterial pathogens in Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiol Plant. 2021;173(4):2248–61.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Lorenzo O, Chico JM, Sánchez-Serrano JJ, Solano R. JASMONATE-INSENSITIVE1 encodes a MYC transcription factor essential to discriminate between different jasmonate-regulated defense responses in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2004;16(7):1938–50.

  31. Chauvin A, Caldelari D, Wolfender JL, Farmer EE. Four 13-lipoxygenases contribute to rapid jasmonate synthesis in wounded Arabidopsis thaliana leaves: a role for lipoxygenase 6 in responses to long-distance wound signals. New Phytol. 2013;197(2):566–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Chauvin A, Lenglet A, Wolfender JL, Farmer EE. Paired hierarchical organization of 13-lipoxygenases in Arabidopsis. Plants (Basel). 2016;5(2).

  33. Çevik V, Kidd BN, Zhang P, Hill C, Kiddle S, Denby KJ, et al. MEDIATOR25 acts as an integrative hub for the regulation of jasmonate-responsive gene expression in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol. 2012;160(1):541–55.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Pré M, Atallah M, Champion A, De Vos M, Pieterse CM, Memelink J. The AP2/ERF domain transcription factor ORA59 integrates jasmonic acid and ethylene signals in plant defense. Plant Physiol. 2008;147(3):1347–57.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Zarei A, Körbes AP, Younessi P, Montiel G, Champion A, Memelink J, Two GCC. boxes and AP2/ERF-domain transcription factor ORA59 in jasmonate/ethylene-mediated activation of the PDF1.2 promoter in Arabidopsis. Plant Mol Biol. 2011;75(4–5):321 – 31.

  36. Bari R, Jones JD. Role of plant hormones in plant defence responses. Plant Mol Biol. 2009;69(4):473–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pieterse CM, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SC. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28:489–521.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Kusajima M, Fujita M, Soudthedlath K, Nakamura H, Yoneyama K, Nomura T, et al. Strigolactones modulate salicylic acid-mediated disease resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(9):5246.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Vos IA, Moritz L, Pieterse CMJ, Van Wees SCM. Impact of hormonal crosstalk on plant resistance and fitness under multi-attacker conditions. Front in Plant Sci. 2015;6:639.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Aerts N, Pereira Mendes M, Van Wees SCM. Multiple levels of crosstalk in hormone networks regulating plant defense. Plant J. 2021;105(2):489–504.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Hickman R, Mendes MP, Van Verk MC, Van Dijken AJH, Di Sora J, Denby K et al. Transcriptional dynamics of the salicylic acid response and its interplay with the jasmonic acid pathway. bioRxiv. 2019:742742.

  42. Shigenaga AM, Argueso CT. No hormone to rule them all: interactions of plant hormones during the responses of plants to pathogens. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2016;56:174–89.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Li N, Han X, Feng D, Yuan D, Huang LJ. Signaling crosstalk between salicylic acid and ethylene/jasmonate in plant defense: do we understand what they are whispering? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(3).

  44. Ross AF. Systemic acquired resistance induced by localized virus infections in plants. Virology. 1961;14:340–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Luna E, Bruce TJ, Roberts MR, Flors V, Ton J. Next-generation systemic acquired resistance. Plant Physiol. 2012;158(2):844–53.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Henry E, Yadeta KA, Coaker G. Recognition of bacterial plant pathogens: local, systemic and transgenerational immunity. New Phytol. 2013;199(4):908–15.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  47. Pieterse CM, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, Weller DM, Van Wees SC, Bakker PA. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2014;52:347–75.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Mishina TE, Zeier J. Pathogen-associated molecular pattern recognition rather than development of tissue necrosis contributes to bacterial induction of systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 2007;50(3):500–13.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Wang C, El-Shetehy M, Shine MB, Yu K, Navarre D, Wendehenne D, et al. Free radicals mediate systemic acquired resistance. Cell Rep. 2014;7(2):348–55.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  50. Shine MB, Xiao X, Kachroo P, Kachroo A. Signaling mechanisms underlying systemic acquired resistance to microbial pathogens. Plant Sci. 2019;279:81–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  51. Dempsey DA, Klessig DF. SOS - too many signals for systemic acquired resistance? Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17(9):538–45.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  52. Riedlmeier M, Ghirardo A, Wenig M, Knappe C, Koch K, Georgii E, et al. Monoterpenes support systemic acquired resistance within and between plants. Plant Cell. 2017;29(6):1440–59.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Wenig M, Ghirardo A, Sales JH, Pabst ES, Breitenbach HH, Antritter F, et al. Systemic acquired resistance networks amplify airborne defense cues. Nat Comm. 2019;10(1):3813.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Kachroo P, Liu H, Kachroo A. Salicylic acid: transport and long-distance immune signaling. Curr Opin Virol. 2020;42:53–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Vernooij B, Friedrich L, Morse A, Reist R, Kolditz-Jawhar R, Ward E, et al. Salicylic acid is not the translocated signal responsible for inducing systemic acquired resistance but is required in signal transduction. Plant Cell. 1994;6(7):959–65.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Lim GH, Liu H, Yu K, Liu R, Shine MB, Fernandez J, et al. The plant cuticle regulates apoplastic transport of salicylic acid during systemic acquired resistance. Sci Adv. 2020;6(19):eaaz0478.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Shah J, Chaturvedi R, Chowdhury Z, Venables B, Petros RA. Signaling by small metabolites in systemic acquired resistance. Plant J. 2014;79(4):645–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Attaran E, Zeier TE, Griebel T, Zeier J. Methyl salicylate production and jasmonate signaling are not essential for systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2009;21(3):954–71.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Chaturvedi R, Venables B, Petros RA, Nalam V, Li M, Wang X, et al. An abietane diterpenoid is a potent activator of systemic acquired resistance. Plant J. 2012;71(1):161–72.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  60. Návarová H, Bernsdorff F, Döring AC, Zeier J. Pipecolic acid, an endogenous mediator of defense amplification and priming, is a critical regulator of inducible plant immunity. Plant Cell. 2012;24(12):5123–41.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Ding P, Rekhter D, Ding Y, Feussner K, Busta L, Haroth S, et al. Characterization of a pipecolic acid biosynthesis pathway required for systemic acquired resistance. Plant Cell. 2016;28(10):2603–15.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  62. Hartmann M, Kim D, Bernsdorff F, Ajami-Rashidi Z, Scholten N, Schreiber S, et al. Biochemical principles and functional aspects of pipecolic acid biosynthesis in plant immunity. Plant Physiol. 2017;174(1):124–53.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  63. Wang C, Liu R, Lim GH, de Lorenzo L, Yu K, Zhang K, et al. Pipecolic acid confers systemic immunity by regulating free radicals. Sci Adv. 2018;4(5):eaar4509.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  64. Chen YC, Holmes EC, Rajniak J, Kim JG, Tang S, Fischer CR, et al. N-hydroxy-pipecolic acid is a mobile metabolite that induces systemic disease resistance in Arabidopsis. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2018;115(21):E4920–E9.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Sun T, Busta L, Zhang Q, Ding P, Jetter R, Zhang Y. Tgacg-binding factor 1 (TGA1) and TGA4 regulate salicylic acid and pipecolic acid biosynthesis by modulating the expression of SYSTEMIC ACQUIRED RESISTANCE DEFICIENT 1 (SARD1) and CALMODULIN-BINDING PROTEIN 60 g (CBP60g). New Phytol. 2018;217(1):344–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  66. Bernsdorff F, Döring AC, Gruner K, Schuck S, Bräutigam A, Zeier J. Pipecolic acid orchestrates plant systemic acquired resistance and defense priming via salicylic acid-dependent and -independent pathways. Plant Cell. 2016;28(1):102–29.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Yildiz I, Mantz M, Hartmann M, Zeier T, Kessel J, Thurow C, et al. The mobile SAR signal N-hydroxypipecolic acid induces NPR1-dependent transcriptional reprogramming and immune priming. Plant Physiol. 2021;186(3):1679–705.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  68. Zeier J. Metabolic regulation of systemic acquired resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2021;62:102050.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. Gao QM, Zhu S, Kachroo P, Kachroo A. Signal regulators of systemic acquired resistance. Front in Plant Sci. 2015;6.

  70. Kim Y, Gilmour SJ, Chao L, Park S, Thomashow MF. Arabidopsis CAMTA transcription factors regulate pipecolic acid biosynthesis and priming of immunity genes. Mol Plant. 2020;13(1):157–68.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Sun T, Huang J, Xu Y, Verma V, Jing B, Sun Y, et al. Redundant CAMTA transcription factors negatively regulate the biosynthesis of salicylic acid and N-hydroxypipecolic acid by modulating the expression of SARD1 and CBP60g. Mol Plant. 2020;13(1):144–56.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Bauer S, Mekonnen DW, Hartmann M, Yildiz I, Janowski R, Lange B, et al. UGT76B1, a promiscuous hub of small molecule-based immune signaling, glucosylates N-hydroxypipecolic acid, and balances plant immunity. Plant Cell. 2021;33(3):714–34.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Mohnike L, Rekhter D, Huang W, Feussner K, Tian H, Herrfurth C, et al. The glycosyltransferase UGT76B1 modulates N-hydroxy-pipecolic acid homeostasis and plant immunity. Plant Cell. 2021;33(3):735–49.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Wang C, Huang X, Li Q, Zhang Y, Li JL, Mou Z. Extracellular pyridine nucleotides trigger plant systemic immunity through a lectin receptor kinase/BAK1 complex. Nat Commun. 2019;10(1):4810.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Jung HW, Tschaplinski TJ, Wang L, Glazebrook J, Greenberg JT. Priming in systemic plant immunity. Science. 2009;324(5923):89–91.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  76. Chanda B, Xia Y, Mandal MK, Yu K, Sekine KT, Gao QM, et al. Glycerol-3-phosphate is a critical mobile inducer of systemic immunity in plants. Nat Genet. 2011;43(5):421–7.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Yu K, Soares JM, Mandal MK, Wang C, Chanda B, Gifford AN, et al. A feedback regulatory loop between G3P and lipid transfer proteins DIR1 and AZI1 mediates azelaic-acid-induced systemic immunity. Cell Rep. 2013;3(4):1266–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Lim GH, Shine MB, de Lorenzo L, Yu K, Cui W, Navarre D, et al. Plasmodesmata localizing proteins regulate transport and signaling during systemic acquired immunity in plants. Cell Host Microbe. 2016;19(4):541–9.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  79. Durrant WE, Dong X. Systemic acquired resistance. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2004;42:185–209.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Breitenbach HH, Wenig M, Wittek F, Jordá L, Maldonado-Alconada AM, Sarioglu H, et al. Contrasting roles of the apoplastic aspartyl protease APOPLSTIC, ENHANCED DISEASE SUSCEPTIBILITY1-DEPENDENT1 and LEGUME LECTIN-LIKE PROTEIN1 in Arabidopsis systemic acquired resistance. Plant Physiol. 2014;165(2):791–809.

  81. Dong X. NPR1, all things considered. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2004;7(5):547–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Vaca E, Behrens C, Theccanat T, Choe JY, Dean JV. Mechanistic differences in the uptake of salicylic acid glucose conjugates by vacuolar membrane-enriched vesicles isolated from Arabidopsis thaliana. Physiol Plant. 2017;161(3):322–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Lee HJ, Park YJ, Seo PJ, Kim JH, Sim HJ, Kim SG, et al. Systemic immunity requires SnRK2.8-mediated nuclear import of NPR1 in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2015;27(12):3425–38.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  84. Pajerowska-Mukhtar KM, Emerine DK, Mukhtar MS. Tell me more: roles of NPRs in plant immunity. Trends Plant Sci. 2013;18(7):402–11.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Seyfferth C, Tsuda K. Salicylic acid signal transduction: the initiation of biosynthesis, perception and transcriptional reprogramming. Front Plant Sci. 2014;5:697.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  86. Spoel SH, Mou Z, Tada Y, Spivey NW, Genschik P, Dong X. Proteasome-mediated turnover of the transcription coactivator NPR1 plays dual roles in regulating plant immunity. Cell. 2009;137(5):860–72.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  87. Klessig DF, Choi HW, Dempsey DA. Systemic acquired resistance and salicylic acid: past, present, and future. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2018;31(9):871–88.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  88. van Peer R, Niemann G, Schippers B. Induced resistance and phytoalexin accumulation in biological control of Fusarium wilt of carnation by Pseudomonas sp strain WCS 417 r. Phytopathology. 1991;81(7):728–34.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Wei G, Kloepper JW, Tuzun S. Induction of systemic resistance of cucumber to Colletotrichum orbiculare by select strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Phytopathology. 1991;81(11):1508–12.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Shah J. Plants under attack: systemic signals in defence. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009;12(4):459–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Verhagen BW, Glazebrook J, Zhu T, Chang HS, van Loon LC, Pieterse CM. The transcriptome of rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2004;17(8):895–908.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Segarra G, Van der Ent S, Trillas I, Pieterse CM. MYB72, a node of convergence in induced systemic resistance triggered by a fungal and a bacterial beneficial microbe. Plant Biol (Stuttg). 2009;11(1):90–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  93. Sanmartín N, Sánchez-Bel P, Pastor V, Pastor-Fernández J, Mateu D, Pozo MJ, et al. Root-to-shoot signalling in mycorrhizal tomato plants upon Botrytis cinerea infection. Plant Sci. 2020;298:110595.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  94. Cecchini NM, Roychoudhry S, Speed DJ, Steffes K, Tambe A, Zodrow K, et al. Underground azelaic acid-conferred resistance to Pseudomonas syringae in Arabidopsis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2019;32(1):86–94.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  95. Shine MB, Gao QM, Chowda-Reddy RV, Singh AK, Kachroo P, Kachroo A. Glycerol-3-phosphate mediates rhizobia-induced systemic signaling in soybean. Nat Comm. 2019;10(1):5303.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  96. Bozorov TA, Dinh ST, Baldwin IT. JA but not JA-Ile is the cell-nonautonomous signal activating JA mediated systemic defenses to herbivory in Nicotiana attenuata. J Integr Plant Biol. 2017;59(8):552–71.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  97. Wang KD, Borrego EJ, Kenerley CM, Kolomiets MV. Oxylipins other than jasmonic acid are xylem-resident signals regulating systemic resistance induced by Trichoderma virens in maize. Plant Cell. 2020;32(1):166–85.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Cecchini NM, Steffes K, Schläppi MR, Gifford AN, Greenberg JT. Arabidopsis AZI1 family proteins mediate signal mobilization for systemic defence priming. Nat Commun. 2015;6:7658.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  99. Timmermann T, Poupin MJ, Vega A, Urrutia C, Ruz GA, González B. Gene networks underlying the early regulation of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans PsJN induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. PLoS ONE. 2019;14(8):e0221358.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Salwan R, Sharma M, Sharma A, Sharma V. Insights into plant beneficial microorganism-triggered induced systemic resistance. Plant Stress. 2023;7:100140.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  101. Spoel SH, Koornneef A, Claessens SM, Korzelius JP, Van Pelt JA, Mueller MJ, et al. NPR1 modulates cross-talk between salicylate- and jasmonate-dependent defense pathways through a novel function in the cytosol. Plant Cell. 2003;15(3):760–70.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Stein E, Molitor A, Kogel KH, Waller F. Systemic resistance in Arabidopsis conferred by the mycorrhizal fungus Piriformospora indica requires jasmonic acid signaling and the cytoplasmic function of NPR1. Plant Cell Physiol. 2008;49(11):1747–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Wu L, Huang Z, Li X, Ma L, Gu Q, Wu H et al. Stomatal closure and SA-, JA/ET-signaling pathways are essential for Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 to restrict leaf disease caused by Phytophthora nicotianae in Nicotiana benthamiana. Front Microbiol. 2018;9.

  104. Yuan M, Huang Y, Ge W, Jia Z, Song S, Zhang L, et al. Involvement of jasmonic acid, ethylene and salicylic acid signaling pathways behind the systemic resistance induced by Trichoderma longibrachiatum H9 in cucumber. BMC Genom. 2019;20(1):144.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Li J, Brader G, Palva ET. The WRKY70 transcription factor: a node of convergence for jasmonate-mediated and salicylate-mediated signals in plant defense. Plant Cell. 2004;16(2):319–31.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Saleh A, Withers J, Mohan R, Marqués J, Gu Y, Yan S, et al. Posttranslational modifications of the master transcriptional regulator NPR1 enable dynamic but tight control of plant immune responses. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;18(2):169–82.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  107. Singh N, Nandi AK. AtOZF1 positively regulates JA signaling and SA-JA cross-talk in Arabidopsis thaliana. J Biosci. 2022;47.

  108. García T, Gutiérrez J, Veloso J, Gago-Fuentes R, Díaz J. Wounding induces local resistance but systemic susceptibility to Botrytis cinerea in pepper plants. J Plant Physiol. 2015;176:202–9.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  109. Chakraborty J, Sen S, Ghosh P, Jain A, Das S. Inhibition of multiple defense responsive pathways by CaWRKY70 transcription factor promotes susceptibility in chickpea under Fusarium oxysporum stress condition. BMC Plant Biol. 2020;20(1):319.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  110. Haney CH, Wiesmann CL, Shapiro LR, Melnyk RA, O’Sullivan LR, Khorasani S, et al. Rhizosphere-associated Pseudomonas induce systemic resistance to herbivores at the cost of susceptibility to bacterial pathogens. Mol Ecol. 2018;27(8):1833–47.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Seybold H, Demetrowitsch TJ, Hassani MA, Szymczak S, Reim E, Haueisen J, et al. A fungal pathogen induces systemic susceptibility and systemic shifts in wheat metabolome and microbiome composition. Nat Comm. 2020;11(1):1910.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  112. Conrath U. 2009. Chapter 9: priming of induced plant defense responses Advances in Botanical Research Academic Press. 51361–95.

  113. Reimer-Michalski EM, Conrath U. Innate immune memory in plants. Semin Immunol. 2016;28(4):319–27.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  114. Conrath U, Beckers GJ, Langenbach CJ, Jaskiewicz MR. Priming for enhanced defense. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2015;53:97–119.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Jaskiewicz M, Conrath U, Peterhänsel C. Chromatin modification acts as a memory for systemic acquired resistance in the plant stress response. EMBO Rep. 2011;12(1):50–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  116. Baccelli I, Benny J, Caruso T, Martinelli F. The priming fingerprint on the plant transcriptome investigated through meta-analysis of RNA-Seq data. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2020;156(3):779–97.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  117. Perazzolli M, Moretto M, Fontana P, Ferrarini A, Velasco R, Moser C, et al. Downy mildew resistance induced by Trichoderma harzianum T39 in susceptible grapevines partially mimics transcriptional changes of resistant genotypes. BMC Genom. 2012;13(1):660.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  118. Yildiz I, Gross M, Moser D, Petzsch P, Köhrer K, Zeier J. N-hydroxypipecolic acid induces systemic acquired resistance and transcriptional reprogramming via TGA transcription factors. Plant Cell Environ. 2023;46(6):1900–20.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  119. Balmer A, Pastor V, Gamir J, Flors V, Mauch-Mani B. The ‘prime-ome’: towards a holistic approach to priming. Trends Plant Sci. 2015;20(7):443–52.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  120. Bonello P, Gordon TR, Herms DA, Wood DL, Erbilgin N. Nature and ecological implications of pathogen-induced systemic resistance in conifers: a novel hypothesis. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2006;68(4):95–104.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  121. Bolton MD. Primary metabolism and plant defense—fuel for the fire. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2009;22(5):487–97.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Bonello P, Gordon TR, Storer AJ. Systemic induced resistance in Monterey pine. For Pathol. 2001;31(2):99–106.

    Google Scholar 

  123. Eyles A, Bonello P, Ganley R, Mohammed C. Induced resistance to pests and pathogens in trees. New Phytol. 2010;185(4):893–908.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Veluthakkal R, Dasgupta MG. Pathogenesis-related genes and proteins in forest tree species. Trees. 2010;24(6):993–1006.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  125. Nagy NE, Fossdal CG, Krokene P, Krekling T, Lönneborg A, Solheim H. Induced responses to pathogen infection in Norway spruce phloem: changes in polyphenolic parenchyma cells, chalcone synthase transcript levels and peroxidase activity. Tree Physiol. 2004;24(5):505–15.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Huang CY, Araujo K, Sánchez JN, Kund G, Trumble J, Roper C, et al. A stable antimicrobial peptide with dual functions of treating and preventing citrus Huanglongbing. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2021;118(6):e2019628118.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  127. Park SW, Kaimoyo E, Kumar D, Mosher S, Klessig DF. Methyl salicylate is a critical mobile signal for plant systemic acquired resistance. Science. 2007;318(5847):113–6.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  128. Lin SI, Chiang SF, Lin WY, Chen JW, Tseng CY, Wu PC, et al. Regulatory network of microRNA399 and PHO2 by systemic signaling. Plant Physiol. 2008;147(2):732–46.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  129. Chang S, Mahon EL, MacKay HA, Rottmann WH, Strauss SH, Pijut PM, et al. Genetic engineering of trees: progress and new horizons. In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant. 2018;54(4):341–76.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  130. Gordon TR, Storer AJ, Wood DL. The pitch canker epidemic in California. Plant Dis. 2001;85(11):1128–39.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Bonello P, Blodgett JT. Pinus nigra–Sphaeropsis sapinea as a model pathosystem to investigate local and systemic effects of fungal infection of pines. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2003;63(5):249–61.

    Google Scholar 

  132. Blodgett JT, Eyles A, Bonello P. Organ-dependent induction of systemic resistance and systemic susceptibility in Pinus nigra inoculated with Sphaeropsis sapinea and Diplodia scrobiculata. Tree Physiol. 2007;27(4):511–7.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  133. Sherwood P, Bonello P. Austrian pine phenolics are likely contributors to systemic induced resistance against Diplodia pinea. Tree Physiol. 2013;33(8):845–54.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Mason CJ, Villari C, Keefover-Ring K, Jagemann S, Zhu J, Bonello P, et al. Spatial and temporal components of induced plant responses in the context of herbivore life history and impact on host. Funct Ecol. 2017;31(11):2034–50.

    Google Scholar 

  135. Keefover-Ring K, Trowbridge A, Mason CJ, Raffa KF. Rapid induction of multiple terpenoid groups by Ponderosa pine in response to bark beetle-associated fungi. J Chem Ecol. 2016;42(1):1–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  136. Hu B, Mithöfer A, Reichelt M, Eggert K, Peters FS, Ma M, et al. Systemic reprogramming of phytohormone profiles and metabolic traits by virulent Diplodia infection in its pine (Pinus sylvestris L) host. Plant Cell Environ. 2021;44(8):2744–64.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  137. Wallis C, Eyles A, Chorbadjian R, McSpadden Gardener B, Hansen R, Cipollini D, et al. Systemic induction of phloem secondary metabolism and its relationship to resistance to a canker pathogen in Austrian pine. New Phytol. 2008;177(3):767–78.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  138. Sherwood P, Bonello P. Testing the systemic induced resistance hypothesis with Austrian pine and Diplodia sapinea. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2016;94:118–25.

  139. Gordon TR, Kirkpatrick SC, Aegerter BJ, Fisher AJ, Storer AJ, Wood DL. Evidence for the occurrence of induced resistance to pitch canker, caused by Gibberella circinata (anamorph fusarium circinatum), in populations of Pinus radiata. For Pathol. 2011;41(3):227–32.

    Google Scholar 

  140. Swett CL, Gordon TR. Exposure to a pine pathogen enhances growth and disease resistance in Pinus radiata seedlings. For Pathol. 2017;47(1):e12298.

    Google Scholar 

  141. Moraga-Suazo P, Sanfuentes E, Le-Feuvre R. Induced systemic resistance triggered by Clonostachys rosea against Fusarium circinatum in Pinus radiata. For Res. 2016;5:1–4.

    Google Scholar 

  142. Liu JJ, Williams H, Li XR, Schoettle AW, Sniezko RA, Murray M, et al. Profiling methyl jasmonate-responsive transcriptome for understanding induced systemic resistance in whitebark pine (Pinus albicaulis). Plant Mol Biol. 2017;95(4–5):359–74.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  143. Beniušytė E, Čėsnienė I, Sirgedaitė-Šėžienė V, Vaitiekūnaitė D. Genotype-dependent jasmonic acid effect on Pinus sylvestris L growth and induced systemic resistance indicators. Plants. 2023;12(2):255.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Mageroy MH, Christiansen E, Långström B, Borg-Karlson AK, Solheim H, Björklund N, et al. Priming of inducible defenses protects Norway spruce against tree-killing bark beetles. Plant Cell Environ. 2020;43(2):420–30.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. Mageroy MH, Wilkinson SW, Tengs T, Cross H, Almvik M, Pétriacq P, et al. Molecular underpinnings of methyl jasmonate-induced resistance in Norway spruce. Plant Cell Environ. 2020;43(8):1827–43.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  146. Burke JL, Bohlmann J, Carroll AL. Consequences of distributional asymmetry in a warming environment: invasion of novel forests by the mountain pine beetle. Ecosphere. 2017;8(4):e01778.

    Google Scholar 

  147. Krause SC, Raffa KF. Comparison of insect, fungal, and mechanically induced defoliation of larch: effects on plant productivity and subsequent host susceptibility. Oecologia. 1992;90:411–6.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Naidoo R, Ferreira L, Berger D, Myburg AA, Naidoo S. The identification and differential expression of Eucalyptus grandis pathogenesis-related genes in response to salicylic acid and methyl jasmonate. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4.

  149. Mangwanda R, Myburg AA, Naidoo S. Transcriptome and hormone profiling reveals Eucalyptus grandis defence responses against Chrysoporthe austroafricana. BMC Genom. 2015;16(1):319.

    Google Scholar 

  150. Kurth F, Mailänder S, Bönn M, Feldhahn L, Herrmann S, Große I, et al. Streptomyces-induced resistance against oak powdery mildew involves host plant responses in defense, photosynthesis, and secondary metabolism pathways. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2014;27(9):891–900.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  151. Salla TD, Astarita LV, Santarém ER. Defense responses in plants of Eucalyptus elicited by Streptomyces and challenged with Botrytis cinerea. Planta. 2016;243(4):1055–70.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Li YX, Zhang W, Dong HX, Liu ZY, Ma J, Zhang XY. Salicylic acid in Populus tomentosa is a remote signalling molecule induced by Botryosphaeria dothidea infection. Sci Rep. 2018;8(1):14059.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Li Y, Zhang W, Sun N, Wang X, Feng Y, Zhang X. Identification and functional verification of differences in phenolic compounds between resistant and susceptible Populus species. Phytopathology. 2020;110(4):805–12.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  154. Dong HX, Li YX, Lv Q, Jia XZ, Zhang XY. Construction of salicylic acid methyltransferase gene over-expression vectors and genetic transformation in Poplar (Populus alba × P. glandulosa). J Agric Biotech. 2016;24(11):1709–17.

    Google Scholar 

  155. Zwart L, Berger DK, Moleleki LN, van der Merwe NA, Myburg AA, Naidoo S. Evidence for salicylic acid signalling and histological changes in the defence response of Eucalyptus grandis to Chrysoporthe austroafricana. Sci Rep. 2017;7:45402.

    CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Ju R, Zhao Y, Li J, Jiang H, Liu P, Yang T, et al. Identification and evaluation of a potential biocontrol agent, Bacillus subtilis, against Fusarium sp in apple seedlings. Ann Microbiol. 2014;64(1):377–83.

    Google Scholar 

  157. Wang M, Zhang R, Zhao L, Wang H, Chen X, Mao Z, et al. Indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi enhance resistance of apple rootstock ‘M9T337’ to apple replant disease. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2021;116:101717.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  158. Oostendorp M, Kunz W, Dietrich B, Staub T. Induced disease resistance in plants by chemicals. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2001;107(1):19–28.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  159. Zhou M, Wang W. Recent advances in synthetic chemical inducers of plant immunity. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9:1613.

    PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Not applicable.

Funding

Funding was provided to SKW and TP by the Department of Science and Innovation and the Technology Innovation Agency of South Africa. The financial assistance of the National Research Foundation (NRF) towards this research is hereby acknowledged. Opinions expressed and conclusions arrived at, are those of the author and are not necessarily to be attributed to the NRF.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Biochemistry, Genetics and Microbiology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute, University of Pretoria, Pretoria, 0028, South Africa

    S. K. Wilson, T. Pretorius & S. Naidoo

Authors
  1. S. K. Wilson
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. T. Pretorius
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Naidoo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

SN conceived the idea for the review. SKW and TP wrote the review with revisions and input from SN.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to S. Naidoo.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Wilson, S.K., Pretorius, T. & Naidoo, S. Mechanisms of systemic resistance to pathogen infection in plants and their potential application in forestry. BMC Plant Biol 23, 404 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-023-04391-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12870-023-04391-9

Keywords

BMC Plant Biology

ISSN: 1471-2229

Contact us