scholarly journals The Shifting Transcriptional Response of Maize Smut Fungus

2018 ◽  
Vol 30 (2) ◽  
pp. 264-264
Author(s):  
Kathleen L. Farquharson
Keyword(s):  
Transcriptional Response ◽  
Smut Fungus ◽  
Maize Smut

Pollination can protect maize ovaries from infection by Ustilago maydis, the corn smut fungus

2001 ◽  
Vol 79 (12) ◽  
pp. 1390-1399 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karen M Snetselaar ◽  
Margaret A Carfioli ◽  
Kelly M Cordisco
Keyword(s):  
Zea Mays ◽  
Fungal Infection ◽  
Standard Method ◽  
Microscopic Examination ◽  
Related Species ◽  
Zea Mays L ◽  
Ustilago Maydis ◽  
Smut Fungus ◽  
Maize Smut ◽  
Corn Smut

Ustilago maydis DC (Corda), the maize smut fungus, causes disease on maize (Zea mays L.) and related species. To determine whether pollination of maize ears affects their susceptibility to U. maydis infection, ears were treated in one of four ways: pollination only, inoculation with compatible haploid U. maydis cells only, pollination followed by inoculation 4 days later, or inoculation followed by pollination 4 days later. Combining a standard method of pollination with the silk channel method of inoculation resulted in reproducible, high levels of pollination and infection in controls. Seventy-seven percent of the kernels on ears pollinated only were fertilized, and 75% of the kernels on ears inoculated only were smutted. Ears pollinated 4 days before inoculation developed only 20% smutted kernels on average, with nearly all tumors forming at the tip of the ear where pollination was probably ineffective. Ears that were inoculated 4 days before pollination were 73% smutted, with only 8% average successful fertilization. Microscopic examination of silks after pollination and inoculation treatments indicated that an abscission zone formed at the bases of pollinated silks and may have prevented fungal infection filaments from growing into the ovaries. These results indicated that pollination rendered ovaries more resistant to infection by U. maydis.Key words: Ustilago, corn smut, pollination, resistance.

Anthracoidea vankyi, a new smut fungus for Moravia.

2005 ◽  
Vol 57 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 275-278
Author(s):  
Petr Kokeš
Keyword(s):  
Smut Fungus

Registered Report: Transcriptional Analysis of Savings Memory Suggests Forgetting Is Due to Retrieval Failure

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Calin-Jageman ◽  
Irina Calin-Jageman ◽  
Tania Rosiles ◽  
Melissa Nguyen ◽  
Annette Garcia ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Memory Trace ◽  
Aplysia Californica ◽  
Transcriptional Response ◽  
Transcriptional Analysis ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Initial Learning ◽  
Rigorous Test ◽  
Stage 1 ◽  
Induced Changes

[[This is a Stage 2 Registered Report manuscript now accepted for publication at eNeuro. The accepted Stage 1 manuscript is posted here: https://psyarxiv.com/s7dft, and the pre-registration for the project is available here (https://osf.io/fqh8j, 9/11/2019). A link to the final Stage 2 manuscript will be posted after peer review and publication.]] There is fundamental debate about the nature of forgetting: some have argued that it represents the decay of the memory trace, others that the memory trace persists but becomes inaccessible due to retrieval failure. These different accounts of forgetting lead to different predictions about savings memory, the rapid re-learning of seemingly forgotten information. If forgetting is due to decay, then savings requires re-encoding and should thus involve the same mechanisms as initial learning. If forgetting is due to retrieval failure, then savings should be mechanistically distinct from encoding. In this registered report we conducted a pre-registered and rigorous test between these accounts of forgetting. Specifically, we used microarray to characterize the transcriptional correlates of a new memory (1 day after training), a forgotten memory (8 days after training), and a savings memory (8 days after training but with a reminder on day 7 to evoke a long-term savings memory) for sensitization in Aplysia californica (n = 8 samples/group). We found that the re-activation of sensitization during savings does not involve a substantial transcriptional response. Thus, savings is transcriptionally distinct relative to a newer (1-day old) memory, with no co-regulated transcripts, negligible similarity in regulation-ranked ordering of transcripts, and a negligible correlation in training-induced changes in gene expression (r = .04 95% CI [-.12, .20]). Overall, our results suggest that forgetting of sensitization memory represents retrieval failure.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document