Abstract
Salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) are each involved in the regulation of basal resistance against different pathogens. These three signals play important roles in induced resistance as well. SA is a key regulator of pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR), whereas JA and ET are required for rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR). Both types of induced resistance are effective against a broad spectrum of pathogens. In this study, we compared the spectrum of effectiveness of SAR and ISR using an oomycete, a fungal, a bacterial, and a viral pathogen. In noninduced Arabidopsis plants, these pathogens are primarily resisted through either SA-dependent basal resistance (Peronospora parasitica and Turnip crinkle virus [TCV]), JA/ET-dependent basal resistance responses (Alternaria brassicicola), or a combination of SA-, JA-, and ET-dependent defenses (Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciae). Activation of ISR resulted in a significant level of protection against A. brassicicola, whereas SAR was ineffective against this pathogen. Conversely, activation of SAR resulted in a high level of protection against P. parasitica and TCV, whereas ISR conferred only weak and no protection against P. parasitica and TCV, respectively. Induction of SAR and ISR was equally effective against X. campestris pv. armoraciae. These results indicate that SAR is effective against pathogens that in noninduced plants are resisted through SA-dependent defenses, whereas ISR is effective against pathogens that in noninduced plants are resisted through JA/ET-dependent defenses. This suggests that SAR and ISR constitute a reinforcement of extant SA- or JA/ET-dependent basal defense responses, respectively.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Activation of ISR gave a significant level of protection against Alternaria brassicicola, unlike SAR.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis
Arabidopsist0 - Treatment
- Activation of ISRe0
- Interactor
- A. brassicicola
Alternaria brassicicolae0pathogen - Outcome
- protection against A. brassicicolae0
- Direction
- resulted ine0
- Comparator
- SARe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Activation of ISR resulted in a significant level of protection against A. brassicicola, whereas SAR was ineffective against this pathogen”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
SAR was ineffective in protecting Arabidopsis against Alternaria brassicicola.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- SARe0
- Interactor
- A. brassicicolaAlternaria brassicicolae0pathogen
- Outcome
- protection against A. brassicicolae0
- Direction
- was ineffectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Activation of ISR resulted in a significant level of protection against A. brassicicola, whereas SAR was ineffective against this pathogen”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
Activation of SAR gave a high level of protection against Peronospora parasitica.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- activation of SARe0
- Interactor
- P. parasitica
Hyaloperonospora parasiticae0pathogen - Outcome
- protectione0
- Direction
- resulted ine0
- Qualifier
- high levele0
- Comparator
- ISRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conversely, activation of SAR resulted in a high level of protection against P. parasitica and TCV, whereas ISR conferred only weak and no protection against P. parasitica and TCV, respectively”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
Activation of SAR gave a high level of protection against Turnip crinkle virus (TCV).
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- activation of SARe0
- Interactor
- TCVe0pathogen
- Outcome
- protectione0
- Direction
- resulted ine0
- Qualifier
- high levele0
- Comparator
- ISRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conversely, activation of SAR resulted in a high level of protection against P. parasitica and TCV, whereas ISR conferred only weak and no protection against P. parasitica and TCV, respectively”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
ISR conferred only weak protection against Peronospora parasitica.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- ISRe0
- Interactor
- P. parasiticaHyaloperonospora parasiticae0pathogen
- Outcome
- protectione0
- Direction
- conferrede0
- Qualifier
- only weake0
- Comparator
- SARe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conversely, activation of SAR resulted in a high level of protection against P. parasitica and TCV, whereas ISR conferred only weak and no protection against P. parasitica and TCV, respectively”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
ISR conferred no protection against Turnip crinkle virus (TCV).
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- ISRe0
- Interactor
- TCVe0pathogen
- Outcome
- protectione0
- Direction
- conferrede0
- Qualifier
- no protectione0
- Comparator
- SARe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Conversely, activation of SAR resulted in a high level of protection against P. parasitica and TCV, whereas ISR conferred only weak and no protection against P. parasitica and TCV, respectively”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
Induction of SAR and ISR was equally effective against Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciae.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- Induction of SAR and ISRe0
- Interactor
- X. campestris pv. armoraciae
Xanthomonas campestris pv. armoraciaee0pathogen - Outcome
- effectivee0
- Direction
- equally effectivee0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Induction of SAR and ISR was equally effective against X. campestris pv. armoraciae”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
Claim · model-written summary
SAR is effective against pathogens resisted by SA-dependent defenses, whereas ISR is effective against pathogens resisted by JA/ET-dependent defenses.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- SARe0
- Outcome
- effective against pathogense0
- Direction
- is effectivee0
- Comparator
- ISRe0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“These results indicate that SAR is effective against pathogens that in noninduced plants are resisted through SA-dependent defenses, whereas ISR is effective against pathogens that in noninduced plants are resisted through JA/ET-dependent defenses”
t0“Induced Resistance in Arabidopsis”
The same questions in other papers
resistance inducer · Alternaria brassicicola · ArabidopsisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- positive
Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.