Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T04:29:32.704Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Ultrastructure of Haustoria of Plant Pathogenic Fungi

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 July 2020

C. W. Mims
Affiliation:
Departments of Plant Pathology, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602
E. A. Richardson
Affiliation:
Botany, University of Georgia, Athens, GA30602
Get access

Extract

Most plant pathogenic fungi that are obligate parasites produce haustoria which are thought to be involved in nutrient absorption. A haustorium is a specialized hyphal branch that penetrates the host cell wall and invaginates the host cell plasma membrane. The host plasma membrane ensheathing the haustorium is termed the extrahaustorial membrane. This presentation provides examples of different types of haustoria produced by plant pathogenic fungi. Species considered here are 1) Cronartium quercuum f. sp.fusiforme, the cause of fusiform gall rust of pine, 2) Puccinia arachidis, the cause of peanut rust1, 3) Uncinuliella australiana, the cause of powdery mildew of crape myrtle, 4) Exobasidium camelliae, a pathogen of Camellia sasanqua2, and 5) Cercosporidium personatum, the cause of late leaf spot of peanut.

Rust fungi typically require two different host species to complete their life cycles. The dikaryotic phase of the rust life cycle consists of intercellular hyphae that give rise to specialized haustoria known as D-haustoria which are remarkably similar from one species to the next.

Type
Biological Ultrastructure/Microbiology
Copyright
Copyright © Microscopy Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References:

1.Mims, C. W. et al., Can. J. Bot. (1989)67, 3570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Mims, C. W., Mycologia (1982)74, 188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3.Bauer, R., Can. J. Bot. (1997)75, 1273.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Mims, C. W. et al., Can. J. Bot. (1989)67, 1198.CrossRefGoogle Scholar