Histopathology of Rhizoctonia root and crown rot of sugar beet reveals differential responses in susceptible and resistant cultivars to invasion by Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2

Clicks: 1
ID: 319948
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal

Ranked #185 of 193 articles by views in Annals of botany

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 193 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Rhizoctonia solani AG 2-2 causes Rhizoctonia root and crown rot (RRCR) of sugar beet and is a major constraint on production worldwide. Sugar beet roots possess distinctive anatomical features, including a corky periderm, a root groove region, and concentric vascular rings, which may influence infection outcomes. Adult-plant resistance is known but the mechanisms are unknown. This study provides an updated histopathology of RRCR and compares responses in resistant and susceptible varieties. METHODS: Six-week-old roots of susceptible (C869) and resistant (SR98/2) varieties were inoculated with R. solani AG 2-2 and sampled 2 to 12 days after inoculation. Tissue sections were examined using brightfield, epi-illumination, fluorescence, and confocal microscopy. Stains included aniline blue, wheat germ agglutinin-Alexa Fluor 488, and pectin-specific antibodies LM19 and LM20. Hyphal penetration, infection cushion formation, tissue maceration, and cell wall modifications were assessed. KEY RESULTS: Unlike reports from other hosts, hyphae did not align with anticlinal walls or produce T-shaped branches but formed infection cushions through spur branching. Direct penetration occurred without cushions and was reduced on the resistant variety. Hyphae spread laterally between the periderm and outer cambium, with deeper penetration occurring where the outer cambium was disrupted. Tissues within the root groove were associated with structural discontinuities and were especially susceptible. Lesions could be delimited by the presence of red autofluorescence and, in the resistant variety, were bordered by callose. The susceptible variety showed loss of LM19/LM20 epitopes, indicating degradation of methylated and demethylated pectin. Resistant roots retained more LM19/LM20 signal, indicating reduced pectin degradation. CONCLUSIONS: Early infection success is shaped by root anatomy, particularly outer cambium continuity and structures of the root groove. Resistant roots mounted a callose-associated response, whereas susceptible roots exhibited limited cell wall reinforcement. These findings refine the histopathology of RRCR and highlight potential targets for resistance breeding.
Reference Key
openalex_W7167672186 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Douglas H. Minier, Linda E. Hanson
Journal Annals of botany
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/aob/mcag201
URL
https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcag201
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.