Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer
Plant Science Today (PST)

Research Articles

Vol. 12 No. 3 (2025)

Biochemical basis of chemically induced disease resistance against sugary disease of sorghum caused by Sphacelia sorghi

DOI
https://doi.org/10.14719/pst.7315
Submitted
20 January 2025
Published
22-07-2025 — Updated on 29-07-2025
Versions

Abstract

Sorghum, a multipurpose food crop and one of the top five grain crops globally, is threatened by sugary disease (ergot), which causes significant yield losses in hybrid seed production. This study aimed to investigate the biochemical basis of disease resistance in sorghum induced by various chemical compounds against sugary disease caused by Sphacelia sorghi. The research evaluated the effects of chitosan, salicylic acid, acibenzolar-s-methyl, beta-aminobutyric acid, ethylene, jasmonic acid, benzoic acid, indole-3-butyric acid, benzothiadiazole and zinc oxide on the activity of phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL) and polyphenol oxidase (PPO) at different concentrations and across various time intervals (3, 6 and 9 days) following post-pathogen inoculation. All treatments significantly increased PAL and PPO activities compared to the control. Chitosan at 1000 ppm (part per million) exhibited the highest PAL activity, while salicylic acid at 1000 ppm recorded the highest PPO activity. The lowest PAL and PPO activities were observed in the control group inoculated with the pathogen alone. The enhanced activity of PAL and PPO in treated plants suggests a strong defensive response in sorghum against S. sorghi. Based on their ability to significantly enhance PAL and PPO activities, the use of disease-tolerant genotypes in combination with prophylactic sprays of chitosan or salicylic acid at 1000 ppm is recommended as a cost-effective strategy for managing sugary disease (ergot) in sorghum.

References

  1. 1. Ananda GKS, Myrans H, Norton SL, Gleadow R, Furtado A, Henry RJ. Wild sorghum as a promising resource for crop improvement. Front Plant Sci. 2022;11:1108. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.01108
  2. 2. Khalifa M, Eltahir EAB. Assessment of global sorghum production, tolerance and climate risk. Front Sustain Food Syst. 2023;7:1184373. https://doi.org/10.3389/fsufs.2023.1184373
  3. 3. Abreha KB, Ortiz R, Carlsson AS, Geleta M. Understanding the sorghum–Colletotrichum sublineola interactions for enhanced host resistance. Front Plant Sci. 2021;12:641969. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.641969
  4. 4. Wang ML, Dean R, Erpelding J, Pederson G. Molecular genetic evaluation of sorghum germplasm differing in response to fungal diseases: rust (Puccinia purpurea) and anthracnose (Collectotrichum graminicola) Euphytica. 2006;148(3):319–30. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-005-9040-0
  5. 5. Das IK, Rajendrakumar P. Disease resistance in sorghum. In: Das IK, Padmaja PG, (eds). Biotic stress resistance in millets. Academic Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts; 2017. pp 23–67 https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804549-7.
  6. 00002-0
  7. 6. Mengistu G, Shimelis H, Laing M, Lule D. Breeding for anthracnose (Colletotrichum sublineolum Henn.) resistance in sorghum: Challenges and opportunities. Aust J Crop Sci. 2018;12(12):1911‒20. https://doi.org/10.21475/ajcs.18.
  8. 12.12.p1230
  9. 7. Pazoutova S, Frederickson DE. Genetic diversity of Claviceps africana on sorghum and Hyparrhenia. Plant Pathol. 2005;54:749‒63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2005.01255.x
  10. 8. Kebede D, Dramadri IO, Rubaihayo P, Odong T, Edema R. Resistance of sorghum genotypes to Ergot (Claviceps
  11. species). Agric. 2023;13:1100. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13051100
  12. 9. Zanjare SR, Suryawanshi AV, Zanjare SS, Shelar VR, Balgude YS. Screening of groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.) genotypes for identification of sources of resistance against leaf spot disease. Legume Res. 2023;46(3):288‒94. https://doi.org/10.18805/LR-4370
  13. 10. Sharma A, Shahzad B, Rehman A, Bhardwaj R, Landi M, Zheng B. Response of phenylpropanoid pathway and the role of polyphenols in plants under abiotic stress. Molecules. 2019;24:2452. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules
  14. 24132452
  15. 11. Worth HDL, Sutton BS, Ainsworth GC. Ainsworth and Bisby's dictionary of fungi. 7" Ed. Commonwealth Mycological Institute, Kew; Surrey, England; 1983. 445 https://doi.org/10.1017/S0024282984000360
  16. 12. Dickerson DP, Pascholati SF, Hagerman AE, Butler LG, Nicholson RL. Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase and hydroxycinnamate: CoA ligase in maize mesocotyls inoculated with Helminthosporium maydis or Helminthosporium carbonum. Physiol Plant Pathol. 1984;25(2):111‒23. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-4059(84)90050-X
  17. 13. Mayer AM. Polyphenol oxidases in plants and fungi: going places? A review. Phytochem. 2006;67(21):2318‒31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2006.08.006
  18. 14. Walter SD, Belo IJ. Design and analysis of factorial clinical trials: The impact of one treatment's effectiveness on the statistical power and required sample size of the other. Stat Methods Med Res. 2023;32(6):1124‒44. https://doi.org/10.1177/09622802231163332
  19. 15. Gomez KA, Gomez AA. Statistical procedures for agricultural research. John Wiley and Sons; 1984 https://doi.org/
  20. 10.1017/S0014479700014496
  21. 16. Prsic J, Ongena M. Elicitors of plant immunity triggered by beneficial bacteria. Front Plant Sci. 2020;11:594530. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2020.594530
  22. 17. Jones JDG, Staskawicz BJ, Dangl JL. The plant immune system: From discovery to deployment. Cell. 2024 Apr 25;187(9):2095‒116. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2024.03.045
  23. 18. Bolwell PP, Page A, Pislewska M, Wojtaszek P. Pathogenic infection and the oxidative defences in plant apoplast. Protoplasma. 2021;217(1-3):20‒32. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01289409
  24. 19. Lorrain S, Vailleau F, Balague C, Roby D. Lesion mimic mutants: Keys for deciphering cell death and defense pathways in plants? Trends Plant Sci. 2003;8(6):263‒71. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(03)00108-0
  25. 20. Lavanya SN, Niranjan-Raj S, Jadimurthy R, Sudarsan S, Srivastava R, Tarasatyavati C, et al. Immunity elicitors for induced resistance against the downy mildew pathogen in pearl millet. Sci Rep. 2022;12(1):4078. https://doi.org/10.
  26. 1038/s41598-022-07839-4
  27. 21. Park CH, Yeo HJ, Park YE, Chun SW, Chung YS, Lee SY, et al. Influence of chitosan, salicylic acid and jasmonic acid on phenylpropanoid accumulation in germinated buckwheat (Fagopyrum esculentum Moench). Foods. 2019;8(5):153. https://doi.org/10.3390/foods8050153
  28. 22. Khan AJ, Deadman ML, Srikandakumar A, Al-Maqbali YM, Rizvi SG, Al-Sabahi J. Biochemical changes in sorghum leaves infected with leaf spot pathogen, Drechslera sorghicola. The Plant Pathol J. 2001;17(6):342‒46.
  29. 23. Kaur S, Bhardwaj RD, Kaur J, Kaur S. Induction of defense-related enzymes and pathogenesis-related proteins
  30. imparts resistance to barley genotypes against spot blotch disease. J Plant Growth Regul. 2021;41:1‒15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-021-10333-2
  31. 24. Kumari N, Sharma I, Alam A, Sharma V. Screening of sorghum genotypes and biochemical changes for resistance to damage caused by Macrophomina phaseolina. Arch Phytopathol Plant Protect. 2016;48(9–12):760–75. https://doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2016.1140569
  32. 25. Chen Z, Silva H, Klessig DF. Active oxygen species in the induction of plant systemic acquired resistance by salicylic acid. Sci. 1993;262(5141):1883‒86. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.8266079
  33. 26. Scaramuzza N, Cigarini M, Mutti P, Berni E. Sanitization of packaging and machineries in the food industry: Effect of hydrogen peroxide on ascospores and conidia of filamentous fungi. Int J Food Microbiol. 2020;316:108421. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2019.108421
  34. 27. Neto RAC, Maraschin M, Di Piero RM. Antifungal activity of salicylic acid against Penicillium expansum and its possible mechanisms of action. Int J Food Microbiol. 2015;215:64‒70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijfoodmicro.2015.
  35. 08.018
  36. 28. Xing K, Zhu X, Peng X, Qin S. Chitosan antimicrobial and eliciting properties for pest control in agriculture: A review. Agron Sustain Dev. 2015;35:569‒88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-014-0252-3
  37. 29. Sharif R, Xie C, Zhang H, Arnao MB, Ali M, Ali Q, et al. Melatonin and its effects on plant systems. Molecules.
  38. 2018;23(9):2352. https://doi.org/10.3390/molecules23092352
  39. 30. Carmona SL, Villarreal-Navarrete A, Burbano-David D, Gómez-Marroquín M, Torres-Rojas E, Soto-Suárez M. Protection of tomato plants against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici induced by chitosan. Rev Colomb Cienc Hortic. 2021;15(3):e12822. https://doi.org/10.17584/rcch.2021v15i3.12822
  40. 31. Kumaraswamy RV, Kumari S, Choudhary RC, Pal A, Raliya R, Biswas P, et al. Engineered chitosan-based nanomaterials: Bioactivities, mechanisms and perspectives in plant protection and growth. Int J Biol Macromol. 2018;113:494‒506. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2018.02.130
  41. 32. El-araby A, Janati W, Ullah R, Uddin N, Bari A. Antifungal efficacy of chitosan extracted from shrimp shell on strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa) postharvest spoilage fungi. Heliyon. 2024;10(7):e29286. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e29286

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.