Indian Journal of Agricultural Research

  • Chief EditorV. Geethalakshmi

  • Print ISSN 0367-8245

  • Online ISSN 0976-058X

  • NAAS Rating 5.60

  • SJR 0.293

Frequency :
Bi-monthly (February, April, June, August, October and December)
Indexing Services :
BIOSIS Preview, ISI Citation Index, Biological Abstracts, Elsevier (Scopus and Embase), AGRICOLA, Google Scholar, CrossRef, CAB Abstracting Journals, Chemical Abstracts, Indian Science Abstracts, EBSCO Indexing Services, Index Copernicus
Submit

Indian Journal of Agricultural Research, volume 43 issue 3 (september 2009) : 157-165

BIOCHEMICAL CHANGES IN ACID LIME DURING PATHOGENICITY OF CANKER PATHOGEN

K. Manonmani*, R. Bhaskaran, R. Jagannathan, M. Jayasekhar*
1Agricultural College and Research Institute TNAU, Madurai- 625 002, India.

  • Submitted|

  • First Online |

  • doi

Cite article:- Manonmani* K., Bhaskaran R., Jagannathan R., Jayasekhar* M. (2024). BIOCHEMICAL CHANGES IN ACID LIME DURING PATHOGENICITY OF CANKER PATHOGEN. Indian Journal of Agricultural Research. 43(3): 157-165. doi: .

ABSTRACT

Studies were conducted to screen out the compatible host and pathogen
combination with acid lime and canker causing pathogenic culture of Xanthomonas
axonopodis pv. citri (Xac). Among the 21 isolates collected from acid lime cultivating
areas of Tamil Nadu, isolate I3 was found to be the most virulent. This compatible
combination was tested under controlled environment condition at 28oC and its
effect on biochemical parameters of host metabolism was studied. The biochemical
changes in the host during the course of pathogenicity include, slight increase in
protein, phenol, phenyl alanine ammonia lyase (PAL), -1, 3-glucanase and chitinase
enzymes. Significant increase in the activities of peroxidase (POX), polyphenol oxidase
(PPO) and catalase was observed in the infected tissues. Total and non-reducing
sugars decreased, but reducing sugar content increased slightly.

REFERENCES

  1. Beleid El-Moshaty, F.L. et al. (1993). Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol., 43 : 109-119.
  2. Bradford, M.M. (1976). Anal. Biochem., 72 : 248-254.
  3. Chance, B. and Machly, A.C. (1955) In : Methods in Enzymology. (Eds. S.P.Colowick and N.O. Kaplan) Academic Press, New York, pp. 764-775.
  4. Chittoor, J.M. et al. (1997). Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact., 10 : 861-871.
  5. Dickerson, D.P. et al, (1984). Physiol. Plant Pathol., 25 : 111-123.
  6. Do. H.M. et al. (2003). Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact., 16 : 196-205
  7. Goto, M. (1992). Fundamentals of Bacterial Plant Pathology. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego. pp. 315-319.
  8. Graham, T.L. and Graham, M.Y. (1991). Mol. Plant – Microbe Interact., 4 : 415-422.
  9. Hahlbrock, K. and Scheel, D. (1989). Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol., 40 : 347-369.
  10. Hammerschmidt, R et al. (1982). Physiol. Plant Pathol., 20 : 73-82.
  11. Hirsch, J. et al. (2002). Phytopathology, 92 : 1142-1148
  12. Hopkins, C.M. et al. (1992). Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact., 5 : 451-459.
  13. Keck, M. and Bauer, M.R. (1999). Acta Horticulture No.489, 335-336 ISBN 90-6605-921-4 (En, 13 ref.) Kosuge, G. (1969). Nature, 226 : 257-261.
Reviewed By

Download Article
In this Article
    Contact us
    Follow us

    Editorial Board

    View all (0)