Understanding the powdery mildew pathogen and rapeseed mustard interactions: Insights into disease resistance and molecular mechanisms to enhance the quality and productivity of oilseed Brassica crops

Abstract

The quantity and quality of oilseed production in rapeseed mustard are severely affected by biotic and abiotic stresses. Among these, the biotrophic fungus Erysiphe cruciferarum causes powdery mildew (PM) infection in Indian mustard cultivars, potentially reducing yield by up to 50% across affected regions in India. Considering recent developments in molecular plant pathology and their impact on sustainable management of challenging plant pathogens, this article reviews the current scenario for resistance and its mechanism to E. cruciferarum in Brassica cultivars. It also covers the complex molecular signaling pathways for resistance that are regulated by phytohormones along with differential gene expression, and effectors proteins in Brassica spp. The recent advancements in genomics have contributed to identification of resistance/susceptibility genes as well as quantitative trait loci (QTLs) involved in PM resistance. Furthermore, this review unfolds a comprehensive understanding of the genetic as well as genomic basis of resistance that can provide the valuable insights for breeding programs focused on developing PM-resistant rapeseed-mustard varieties. This review aims to provide the background on recent discoveries and future strategies on identification of resistance genes, aiding in the development of more resilient rapeseed-mustard crops and leading to significant improvements in crop protection and yield stability.

Full Article

Understanding the Powdery Mildew Pathogen and Rapeseed Mustard Interactions: Insights into Disease Resistance and Molecular Mechanisms to Enhance the Quality and Productivity of Oilseed Brassica Crops

Sayantani Chanda,^a,# Laxmi Awasthi,^a,# Rakhi Tomar,^a Samridhi Mehta,^a Ankita Kumari,^a Shiv Shankar Sharma,^a Prajjwal Rai,^b Mahesh Rao,^a Peru Nallathambi,^c Prabhu Dayal Meena,^d Archana Rai,^e,* and Ashish Kumar Gupta ^a,*

The quantity and quality of oilseed production in rapeseed mustard are severely affected by biotic and abiotic stresses. Among these, the biotrophic fungus Erysiphe cruciferarum causes powdery mildew (PM) infection in Indian mustard cultivars, potentially reducing yield by up to 50% across affected regions in India. Considering recent developments in molecular plant pathology and their impact on sustainable management of challenging plant pathogens, this article reviews the current scenario for resistance and its mechanism to E. cruciferarum in Brassica cultivars. It also covers the complex molecular signaling pathways for resistance that are regulated by phytohormones along with differential gene expression, and effectors proteins in Brassica spp. The recent advancements in genomics have contributed to identification of resistance/susceptibility genes as well as quantitative trait loci (QTLs) involved in PM resistance. Furthermore, this review unfolds a comprehensive understanding of the genetic as well as genomic basis of resistance that can provide the valuable insights for breeding programs focused on developing PM-resistant rapeseed-mustard varieties. This review aims to provide the background on recent discoveries and future strategies on identification of resistance genes, aiding in the development of more resilient rapeseed-mustard crops and leading to significant improvements in crop protection and yield stability.

DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Chanda

Keywords: Rapeseed mustard; Erysiphe cruciferarum; Powdery mildew; Yield loss; Host-pathogen interactions; Host resistance; Effectors genes; Genome editing and developing resilient rapeseed cultivars

Contact information: a: ICAR- National Institute for Plant Biotechnology, New Delhi-110 012, India; b:  ICAR- Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi-110 012, India; c: ICAR-IARI Regional Station, Wellington, The Nilgiris Tamilnadu-643 231, India; d: ICAR-Directorate of Rapeseed-Mustard Research, Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321 303, India; e: Nuclear Agriculture & Biotechnology Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai – 400 085, India; ^#: These two authors have contributed equally to this work;

*Corresponding authors: raiarchu@barc.gov.in; ashish.pathology@gmail.com

INTRODUCTION

Rapeseed-mustard (Brassica spp.) stands as a cornerstone in global oilseed cultivation, notably contributing to the edible oil market alongside soybean and oil palm. However, a gap persists between the supply and demand of oilseeds, driven by the increasing global population. Moreover, the change in global climate scenario has posed a significant risk to Brassica cultivation resulting in an increased disease incidences and severity. A diverse range of plant pathogens infect Brassica crops. One such known fungal biotroph is E. cruciferarum Opiz ex L. Junell, which causes powdery mildew (PM) disease in this crop. There are about 700 species of PM pathogens capable of infecting approximately 10,000 plant species (Braun and Cook 2012). Within the last two decades, PM has become epidemic in rapeseed-mustard, affecting over 120 cruciferous host plant species in more than 25 countries (Mir et al. 2023). The disease is especially prevalent in regions with cool, dry conditions in leading rapeseed-mustard producing countries such as Canada, China, India, and the European Union (FAO 2022). In India, it spreads rapidly across major mustard-growing states such as Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, Gujarat, and Maharashtra (Dange et al. 2002; Mohitkar et al. 2012; Meena et al. 2018), thus posing a major bottleneck to the seed production, quality and profitability. Furthermore, the pathogen caused yield losses ranging between 20% and 40% across various regions of India, with severely affected fields experiencing losses of up to 50% (Kumar et al. 2016; Meena et al. 2018). These significant yield losses can translate into economic setbacks, affecting the livelihoods of farmers and the overall productivity of the agricultural sector.

Despite its significance, PM has received less research attention compared to other diseases such as Alternaria blight and white rust. Perhaps this is because it appears later in the crop growth stages and its damage is estimated frequently after harvest. While previous reports primarily have emphasized yield losses, PM affects overall productivity by reducing oil quality and altering the plant’s physiological processes, especially decreasing photosynthetic efficiency followed by overall plant vigour and seed yield. Due to the presence of powdery mass on leaf surfaces, significant reductions were observed in leaf gas exchange parameters like net photosynthetic rate and transpiration rate in the infected leaves of susceptible genotypes compared to resistant and moderate genotype groups. Chlorophyll fluorescence analysis revealed a decrease in the maximum quantum efficiency of photosystem-II in PM-infected leaves across the genotype groups in different crop plants (Sree et al. 2024; Saja et al. 2020). The net photosynthetic efficiency goes down in susceptible genotypes, which ultimately affects the productivity of the crop plants.

Striking research efforts by plant pathologists and breeders to combat PM in Brassica species have been bolstered by extensive work focused on elucidating the genetic level of resistance and developing resilient cultivars. Studies leveraging model plants, such as Arabidopsis thaliana, have given crucial insights for molecular defense mechanism, signalling pathways underlying resistance to PM and pathogen-host interactions. Genetic studies have identified candidate resistance genes (R genes) and quantitative traits loci (QTLs) imparting with PM resistance, facilitating marker-assisted selections and breeding programs targeted for improvement and development of resistant varieties for PM disease.

Moreover, the exploration of wild relatives of Brassica crops has unearthed promising genetic resources for enhancing resistance. These efforts are pivotal for the sustainable agriculture, aiming not only to minimize yield losses but also to reduce dependency on chemical pesticides, thereby promoting eco-friendly crop production practices. Cultural practices, such as crop rotation and debris management, help reduce disease pressure but they are not always sufficient alone. Breeding for resistance offers a sustainable solution, though it requires time and can be challenged by pathogen evolution. An integrated approach combining these strategies (cultural, genetic resistance, minimal use of pesticides) is the most effective for long-term PM disease management in Brassica crops. However, judicious exploration of such strategies will signify mustard cultivation with enhanced yield and quality. Hence, this review comprehends current knowledge and recent advancements in global rapeseed-mustard research, including Brassica genetics, the PM (E. cruciferarum) pathogen, associated seed yield and oil content losses, and management strategies. It further explores key aspects such as genetic diversity, host-pathogen interactions, resistance mechanisms, and breeding strategies, that are crucial for ensuring food and nutritional security, particularly in developing countries. Furthermore, it outlines future research directions aimed for elucidating the complexities of PM disease and accelerating the development of durable resistance in Brassica crops. By understanding host-pathogen interactions and pinpointing resistance-associated genes, the findings aid in the development of disease-resistant varieties through molecular breeding and biotechnological approaches.

Fig. 1. Image illustrating the characteristic powdery mildew disease symptoms on Brassica spp. leaf, stems, and pods.

ASPECTS OF THE PATHOGEN AND ITS CONTROL

Economic Significance of E. cruciferarum in Brassica Species

Powdery mildew disease is an epidemic and devastating disease in Indian mustard cultivars. Due to variable weather conditions in different agro-climatic regions, powdery mildew affects photosynthetic efficiency, leading to stunted growth, premature senescence, defoliation, and reduced biomass accumulation. This results in shrivelled seeds, reduced seed weight, and poor pod formation, ultimately lowering the oil content and collectively deteriorating overall crop productivity. Powdery mildew disrupts photosynthetic surfaces. This not only reduces the photosynthetic efficiency and yield, but it also causes a stress condition for the plant. Exposure to stress condition can alter metabolite profiling and the lipid biosynthesis pathways that ultimately change the fatty acid composition and reduce its seed nutritional quality (Baud and Lepiniec 2010). In B. juncea, profound yield losses were recorded due to E. cruciferarum infection, for example, in Gujarat, yield loss was reported at 24.1% (Dange et al. 2003), while in Haryana, the EC-126743 accession showed a yield loss of 17.4% and a drop in oil content of 6.5% (Saharan and Sheoran 1985). In Maharashtra, the Pusa Bold and Seeta cultivars experienced dramatic yield reduction ranging from 45% to 95% (Hare 1994). Another study from Maharashtra reported yield losses between 15% to 40% and oil content reduction up to 37.6% in cultivars Seeta, Pusa Bold, Bio-902, and TM-17 (Kohire et al. 2008). Kanzaria et al. (2013) estimated losses of 7.3%, 21.7%, 22.5%, and 21.5% in oil content, protein content, seed yield, and test weight, respectively, because of E. cruciferarum infection in Maharashtra and Gujarat, regions where the PM disease is highly prevalent in severe form. Powdery mildew has also been reported to cause yield losses exceeding 25% to 30% in Turkey, United States, Korea, France, Australia, and Poland where B. napus is grown widely (Sadowski et al. 2002; Mert-Turk 2008; Kaur et al. 2008; Khangura et al. 2011; Kim et al. 2013; Uloth et al. 2016; Meena et al. 2018). Brassica rapa cultivars such as Yellow Sarson in Canada and Europe have shown yield losses of 20% to 30% and oil content reductions of 10% to 20% (Smith and Johnson 2020). In B. oleracea, yield loss is often measured in terms of marketable quality rather than quantity, yet losses ranging from 20% to 50% in cultivars including Green Magic in California and Spain have been reported (Table 1; Saharan et al. 2005). These widespread and significant yield and oil content reductions around the world highlight the necessity for effective disease management programmes to mitigate the economic impact and yield losses of powdery mildew on Brassica crops.

Table 1. Impact of Powdery Mildew Severity on Seed Yield and Oil Quantity Losses in Brassica spp. under Indian and Global Perspectives

Genomic insights and Host Range of E. cruciferarum

Erysiphe cruciferarum is a fungal biotroph that is primarily responsible for causing powdery mildew (PM) in Brassica species including B. juncea, B. napus, B. nigra, B. oleracea, and B. rapa (Glawe 2008). The phenotypic and fundamental genomic information based on the conserved internal transcribed spacer (ITS) region of DNA has been made available for E. cruciferarum, but no whole genome assembly has been reported to date. However, the database is rich in genome of fungi causing PM disease in hosts other than Brassicaceae. The previous genome assemblies indicates that PM fungi are approximately four times larger in size compared to other ascomycetes, especially, the genome size of Golovinomyces orontii is approximately 160 Mb. (Saharan et al. 2023). Various E. cruciferarum isolates were identified through the amplification of ITS1 and ITS2 regions that flank the 5.8S rRNA using universal primers ITS1 (forward) and ITS4 (reverse), showing >99% nucleotide identity with GenBank sequences for E. cruciferarum. The entire ITS region of the DNA for PM isolate KUS-F24819 was sequenced after amplification with primers ITS5 and P3, and deposited under the accession no. KC862331 showing 100% identity with E. cruciferarum isolates from Arabidopsis thaliana, B. oleracea var. acephala, and B. rapa (Kim et al. 2013). Morphological, along with phylogenetic, analyses of various isolates were conducted using Erysiphaceae-specific primers such as PMITS1 and PMITS2 (Borges et al. 2023). Detection at the molecular level involved amplifying the ITS1 region with oligonucleotides EryF and EryR from infected plant tissues DNA (Attanayake et al. 2009; Pane et al. 2021). So far, the use of comparative genomic studies greatly facilitates the identification and characterization of genes linked to target traits in various species (Wan et al., 2008). However, additional research is needed to elucidate the genomics and genetic diversity of the PM pathogen in Indian mustard. In addition to cultivated Brassica species, the pathogen E. cruciferarum also infects a wide range of wild relatives across the Brassicaceae family worldwide (Table 2).

Table 2. Inventory of Different Brassica Crop’s Wild Relatives Infected by PM Pathogen Along with the Records of Various Locations Worldwide (Saharan et al. 2019)

Table 2. Inventory of Different Brassica Crop’s Wild Relatives Infected by PM Pathogen Along with the Records of Various Locations Worldwide (Saharan et al. 2019)

Furthermore, different Brassica genotypes exhibit varying degrees of resistance or susceptibility to E. cruciferarum. This variation is largely governed by the presence or absence of resistance (R) genes, differences in the speed and intensity of immune response activation, and hormonal regulation efficiency. For instance, certain B. juncea lines and wild relatives possess quantitative trait loci (QTLs) conferring partial to strong resistance, while commercial cultivars often lack these traits. Additionally, transcriptomic differences in defense gene expression further explain the differential responses, where resistant genotypes show a faster and stronger activation of PR genes, SA signaling, and ROS production compared to susceptible ones.

Mechanistic Insights Underlying Host-Pathogen Interactions in Brassica Species

The first line of defense: PTI response against PM infection

Inherently, plants have evolved a two-step defense mechanism that detect and deploy immune response appropriately: (1) Pattern recognition receptors or PRRs (Extracellular receptor-like kinases: RLKs and receptor-like proteins: RLPs) that detect PAMPs/DAMPs; (2) Intracellular receptors with nucleotide-binding and leucine-rich repeat domains (NLRs) that interact with pathogen specific secretory proteins called effectors (Krattinger and Keller 2016). The initial immune response to the pathogen attack is triggered when the receptors on the host cell’s surface, called the PRRs, recognize pathogen/damage-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs/DAMPs) (Jones and Dangl 2006), that are present on the pathogen’s surface. This recognition leads to PTI response, which then initiates further down-signaling in the form of MAPK cascade and other defense associated pathways. Previous research has shown that the chitin, in cell walls of fungal pathogen, triggered immune responses in Arabidopsis, as it was recognized by PRR receptors, such as LYK4/5 (lysine motif receptor-like kinases 4/5) and CERK1 (chitin elicitor receptor kinase1), which led to accumulation of defense protein and callose deposition (Cao et al. 2014). Moreover, mutations in CERK1 were also linked to increased susceptibility for PM, emphasizing its role in broad range disease resistance (Wan et al. 2008). Similarly, the recessive gene, ol-2, an analog to the MLO gene revealed in barley, facilitated histological resistance through the development of papillae. These papillae are composed of callose and other substances and form at the sites where the plant and powdery mildew interact, therefore halting fungal growth early and ensuring complete resistance (Bai et al. 2003, 2008). In Brassica species also, these mechanisms need to be worked out for the rapid screening and identification of durable resistant types.

R-gene base or vertical immunity (Effector-triggered immunity ETI)

Although PTI response provides strong defense against the infection, pathogens tend to constantly evolve novel ways to bypass PTI. One such strategy is secretion of specialized molecules called the effectors in the host cytoplasm. Effectors or the ‘avirulence’ factors are known to promote virulence and are highly diverse in nature (White et al. 2000). The ETI is marked by robust resistance responses, activated when pathogen effectors (avr proteins) are recognized by intracellular receptors present in the host cells, resulting in race-specific, major gene resistance. Such type of resistance follows gene-for-gene hypothesis according to which an effector gene causes avirulence in the host plant with its interactive resistance (R) gene. These R gene encode diverse intercellular receptors with two conserved domains, i.e., the nucleotide-binding site (NBS) and a region of leucine-rich repeats (LRRs). Apart from LRR or LRR-like domains, the R proteins typically possess toll/interleukin-1-receptor (TIR) domains, and serine/threonine kinases (S/TK). The R genes are usually categorized into two groups: those with a TIR domain towards N terminal are termed TNLs, while those with a CC (coiled-coil) domain towards N terminal are termed as CNLs. Additionally, R-genes with PM 8 (RPW8) domain have also been reported and are referred to as RNLs (Tirnaz et al. 2020). Usually, initiation of R-gene recognition system induces hypersensitive response (HR), which stops the pathogen from spreading to neighboring healthy cells by inducing localized cell death at the infection site, therefore, conferring systemic resistance (Keen et al. 1993). The RNL gene in Arabidopsis (viz., RPW8.1 and RPW8.2) has been reported to provide resistance by promoting accumulation of H₂O₂ and confined cell death through the SA-dependent pathway (Kim et al. 2014). Among this, RPW8.2 localize towards EHM (extra-haustorial membrane) to activate defense signaling, requiring specific protein interactions and transport mechanisms. The reports on mutations in RPW8.2 affect its function and resistance (Saharan and Krishnia 2001).

Role of phytohormones in PM resistance: Systemic acquired resistance (SAR)

For effectively deploying defense response against the pathogens, host plants have developed various signaling pathways during the initiation of the infection. These pathways are mostly activated in response to the changes in regulation of different phytohormones, especially SA, JA, and Et. While SA accumulates during the attack by biotrophic pathogens, JA and Et come together to stop the development of necrotrophic organisms. Previous studies have shown the role of SA in inducing systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in response to PM infection, which is caused by a biotrophic pathogen. Usually, SA accumulation leads to SAR response, resulting in a long-term resistance against multiple pathogens by activating a range of defense genes, particularly those encoding pathogenesis-related (PR) proteins (Park et al. 2007). Key studies have established the importance of SA signaling in the regulation of genes necessary for redox and calcium signaling, essential for activation of NPR1 gene (Chandran et al. 2009). This results in the increase of transcripts for genes involved in SA-production and PR genes. Mutations in SA signaling genes such as wrky18 and wrky40 can affect the plant’s PM disease response. Furthermore, mutation in EDR1 protein kinase affects the accumulation of defense-related transcripts, particularly those encoding TFs such as WRKY and AP2/ERF, thus increasing SA-dependent resistance against PM (Christiansen et al. 2011). Moreover, infected plants with the EDR1 mutation also revealed increased genes expression related to the endomembrane system and ROS generation. The EDR1 migrates from endoplasmic reticulum to the plant-fungal interaction site during PM disease, which suggests that it is a part of secretory pathway in the defense against PM (Christiansen et al. 2011; Wu et al. 2015). These results demonstrate complex roles that the secretory system and SA signaling play in Arabidopsis protection against E. cruciferarum. The PR-1 and PR-2 genes were significantly up-regulated in Raphanus alboglabra compared to B. napus, with the elicitor stimulating these genes upon PM infection (Alkooranee et al. 2015). These types of studies, thus, highlight the intricate interplay between SA signaling, transcription factors, and the secretory system in orchestrating effective defense mechanisms against powdery mildew, underscoring the complexity of plant immune responses.

Inheritance and Resistance Mechanisms in Brassica Species Against E. cruciferarum

Brassica species as potential genetic resistance sources for PM

Plant genetic resources are crucial components of agricultural biodiversity, essential for the development of novel varieties to feed the world’s burgeoning population. The genetic diversity within Brassica germplasm represents a valuable reservoir of resistance against PM disease, which can be harnessed effectively for the development of disease resilient cultivars. Therefore, extensive research has been conducted globally to explore the inherent potential for disease resistance in rapeseed-mustard against PM pathogen (Table 3). Assessment of 71 genotypes of B. juncea from China, India, and Australia revealing four genotypes, ‘JM06014’, ‘JM06015’, ‘JM06012’, and ‘JM06009’, provided PM resistance in natural field conditions (Singh et al. 2010). However, in contrast, all tested genotypes from China and India were found to be susceptible to PM disease. In another study, 200 genotypes were screened out of which 20 resistant, 9 moderately resistant, and 71 highly susceptible genotypes were selected (Singh et al. 2016). Similarly, 61 germplasm were tested under natural conditions, identifying eight immune and one highly resistant, with 36 moderately resistant genotypes (Chadar et al. 2020). One genotype ‘RDV 29’ was also reported as highly resistant along with 12 moderately resistant germplasm after screening of 1,020 Indian mustard accessions (Nanjundan et al. 2020). Apart from cultivated Brassica, wild relatives are also a rich reservoir of resistance against multiple diseases including PM; however, they are less explored. At present, eleven accessions of A. thaliana are reported to be resistant to PM disease. Therefore, more studies to explore PM resistance in wild relatives are necessary to fully exploit their genetic potential. Furthermore, there is a need for development of more robust screening techniques to categorize germplasm more accurately from immune to susceptible. The present screening methods involve phenotyping of the genotypes based on the observation of physical symptoms post PM inoculation through staple leaf method or conidial dusting with sterile brush (Bhosle et al. 2021) followed by categorization under the rating scale ranging from 0 (immune) to 9 (highly susceptible), as recommended by the AICRP-RM in India. This often has led to inaccuracies and discrepancies in the observations and inconsistency during the repeated experiments. Therefore, incorporation of molecular approaches like LAMP (Loop-Mediated Isothermal Amplification) and LFA (Lateral Flow Assay) assays can offer more rapid and accurate diagnosis of the pathogen and hence better characterization of the germplasm is possible based on the quantification of disease severity (Attaluri and Dharavath 2023).

Table 3. Genetic Resources for Resistance in Brassica Species against Powdery Mildew Pathogen

Inheritance pattern of PM resistance in Brassica species

Introgression or crossings have been developed widely to study the inheritance pattern of resistance in Brassica species for PM disease resistance (Alkooranee et al. 2015). Early breeding experiments crossing a susceptible parent from B. juncea with the resistant parent belonging to B. carinata (Varuna × PCC2; RH 30 × HC-1) demonstrated that one dominant gene provides wide resistance against multiple pathogens (PM, white rust and Alternaria blight disease) in B. carinata (Kumar et al. 2002). In a recent study, accessions of B. napus and other species were screened, and a B. carinata cv. ‘white flower’ was identified immune for PM under natural and in-vitro conditions (Gong et al. 2020). Hybridization of this B. carinata with the elite cultivar of B. napus ‘Zhongshuang11’ generated F₁ hybrids that inherited cytoplasm from the resistant parent (B. carinata). The progenies were backcrossed to yield five and a single line from BC₁F₃ and BC₂F₂ generation, respectively, that showed highly resistance to moderate resistance against the PM disease. Moreover, these lines exhibited similar seed quality and morphological traits to ‘Zhongshuang11’, indicating successful introgression of resistance genes into B. napus. In India B. juncea, one accession, namely RDV29, was found to be completely resistant to the PM disease. The genetic analysis of populations obtained by crossing the resistant parent ‘RDV29’ with susceptible parent ‘RSEJ775’ was made. The screening and evaluation of F1 generation showed that the PM resistance in RDV29 is semi-dominant in nature and determined by two unlinked loci. The segregation ratios in F2 (9:6:1; resistant: susceptible: highly susceptible), susceptible backcross (1:2:1; partially resistant: susceptible: highly susceptible), and resistant backcross (all resistant) further confirmed this statement. Furthermore, it was also inferred from the data that the expression of the resistance depends on the gene dosage (Nanjundan et al. 2020). Similar findings were previously reported in A. thaliana, where resistance to PM was governed by a locus in 5 genotypes and by two distant loci in single germplasm. In some cases, resistance was encoded by semi-dominant alleles, while in others, susceptibility by dominant alleles (Adam and Somerville 1996). The locus RPW8 in A. thaliana consist of two resistance genes (RPW8.1 and RPW8.2) that are of dominant nature and confers broad range resistance to PM (Xiao et al. 2001). These reports collectively shed light on the complex and variable nature of resistance against the PM disease in Brassica crops, demonstrating that effective resistance can arise from single dominant genes, semi-dominant alleles, or multiple loci, thus offering insightful strategies for future breeding plans targeted at improving Brassica crops.

Mechanism of resistance against PM in Brassica spp.

Exposure of Brassica plants to E. cruciferarum triggers the initial defense mechanisms against pathogen infection and proliferation. These include physical barriers such as wax, cuticle, epidermal cell wall, stomata, leaf hairs, and thick-walled tissues, that prevent pathogen entry. In cruciferous plants, resistance to E. cruciferarum before penetration is mainly provided by the cuticle and waxes (Malinovsky et al. 2014). Microscopic and transcriptome analyses were performed for PM resistance in the progenies of inter-specific crosses between resistant B. carinata and susceptible parent B. napus and found formation of needle-like and few flaky particles on the leaf wax of progenies that showed resistance. Furthermore, the study also found elevated expression of genes involved in biosynthesis of wax (CER, KCS6, MAH1, and LACS2), which are necessary for modulating certain wax components in resistant genotypes (Zhang et al. 2022). Additionally, several cell wall integrity genes, such as PGIP1, PMR5, RWA2, PDCB1, C/VIF2, and PMEI9, were also observed to be upregulated. In contrast, low callose deposition in resistant progenies as compared to in susceptible ones was observed in the study, perhaps due to initiation of other structural responses deterring the pathogen entry in resistant genotypes. The histopathological and phenotypic studies revealed that necrosis as a result of PM disease was observed higher after infection in Camelina sativa and B. juncea as compared to Sinapis alba (Mir et al. 2023). This cell death was apprehended due to antioxidant enzyme activities in these species following infection by E. cruciferarum as corresponding to the cell death, the enzyme activity was observed to be relatively higher in C. sativa and B. juncea in comparison with S. alba. However, if the pathogen overcomes these initial defensive layers, it encounters a more systematic defense response through proven mechanisms viz., ETI and PTI. Similar mechanism of resistance was documented in other species of PM pathogen (Muthamilarasan and Prasad 2013). A form of cell death as HR (hypersensitive reactions) was reported in tomato powdery mildew interactions. This HR reaction is due to the interaction among pathogen avirulence (avr) factors and plant proteins (Nimchuk et al. 2003). There are two forms of HR responses in response to Oidium neolycopersici on tomato. The single cell HR reactions and fast HR reactions occur in the presence of two different genes, i.e., Ol-4 and Ol-6, respectively, which could happen if the epidermal cells are infected by the haustoria (Huang et al. 1998; Bai et al. 2005). Tomato plants carrying three Ol-genes (Ol-1,3, and 5) are associated with three accessions of Solanum habrochaites (Li et al. 2007). In Arabidopsis thaliana CPR5 mutants, hypersensitive response is accompanied by spatial and temporal overexpression of CEP1 in a specific manner, coinciding with the spontaneous cell death. However, it is noteworthy that while CEP1’s involvement in programmed cell death (PCD) is regulated by CPR5 and induced by E. cruciferarum, it is not essential for CPR5 mutants to show elevated amounts of resistance to PM (Misas-Villamil et al. 2016; Howing et al. 2017). The inherent powdery mildew resistance genes with crop plants encode different physiological responses in host cells and result in different levels of resistance. Similarly, Indian mustard cultivars also comprise various species and accessions from Brassica. Therefore, there are possibilities of different genes that could respond to such HR reactions, which need thorough investigations.

Biochemical indices associated with resistance against powdery mildew infections

Cruciferous plants generally synthesize biochemical molecules upon PM pathogen’s infection as defense response. In response to the pathogen penetration, it has been observed that the infected cells of Arabidopsis and other crucifer develop cell wall appositions (CWAs) that not only provide physical reinforcements but also act as a chemical antimicrobial barrier against E. cruciferarum (Hardham et al. 2007; Huckelhoven 2007). Post-penetration, the changes in biochemistry of the host plant come as part of SAR and ISR response, where the ISR pathway is arbitrated by NPR1 gene and is ultimately crucial for disease resistance and responds to changes in ethylene and jasmonic acid, while the SAR pathway is regulated by salicylic acid (SA) accumulation (Choudhary et al. 2007). This pathway usually regulates the PR proteins, such as PR1, PR2, and PR5, while the JA-ET pathway controls different defense genes, including PDF1.2 and PR3 in A. thaliana. Additionally, the plant cytochrome P450 gene also responds to the powdery mildew infection by encoding defense-related biochemical enzymes. In Arabidopsis, the mutants lacking the CYP83A1 gene were found to be involved in synthesizing plant chemicals that exhibit resistance to PM (Weis et al. 2013). It was then found that this gene (CYP83A1) aided in producing glucosinolates that are key molecules involved in host defense mechanisms (Bak et al. 2001). Glucosinolates have a key role in both deterring or attracting insects and combatting diseases such as powdery mildew (Bednarek and Osbourn 2009). Without sufficient glucosinolates, the tested pathogen struggles to infect Brassicaceae plants, reliant on these compounds for host recognition and penetration (Weis et al. 2014). Another tryptophan-derived compound called camalexin is also believed to contribute to enhanced PM resistance. Its production relies on several cytochrome P450 enzymes, viz. CYP71A13, CYP79B2, and CYP71B15 (associated with the camalexin and phytoalexin deficiency) (Nafisi et al. 2007; Schuhegger et al. 2007a, 2007b). Mutations within these genes usually hamper the camalexin production, therefore leading to reduced resistance (Saharan et al. 2019). These insights underscore the multifaceted nature of powdery mildew resistance in cruciferous plants, where diverse biochemical pathways and genetic components, including glucosinolates, camalexin, and PMR genes, collectively contribute to complex and dynamic defense responses against pathogen invasion.

Molecular events involved in resistance in Brassica species in response to E. cruciferarum

Although the histological or cellular reactions and the biochemical molecules are associated with some of the defense responses to PM infections, the genomic or molecular interactions are the ultimate end process for ascertaining the host resistance types. The evolutionary mechanism that helps maintain homologous R genes in B. napus, which provide broad spectrum resistance for PM pathogen, have been previously studied. In B. rapa, one gene and three genes in B. oleracea, have been identified as being similar to RPW8 (Li et al. 2016). Additionally, two loci RPW6 and RPW7 were located on chromosome 5 and 3, respectively, in A. thaliana genome that showed independent dominant inheritance against PM disease (Xiao et al. 1997). Most of the characterized R genes in A. thaliana for powdery mildew are C-terminal NB-LRRs, while there is a smaller number of N-terminal coiled-coil motif superfamily and transmembrane domains. Key genes include EDS1, EDR1, PAD4, EDS5, NPR1, EIN2, RAR1, COI1, SGT1b, PBS3, NDR1, and RPW8 (Xiao et al. 2005). In Arabidopsis, genetic screenings have also led to the identification of six recessive loci of PM resistant mutants (PMR1 to PMR6), with genes PMR2, PMR4/GSL5, PMR5, and PMR6 having been partially characterized in Arabidopsis (Vogel and Somerville 2000; Jacobs et al. 2003; Nishimura et al. 2003; Consonni et al. 2006). These mutants have shown increased resistance against PM disease. Furthermore, the susceptibility gene containing MLO locus was also screened and characterized in Brassica with respect to its sequence similarity with barley MLO and identified as a susceptibility gene (Consonni et al. 2006). Chandran et al. (2009) elucidated 67 transcription factors with altered expression at the PM infection site, revealing that MYB3R4 acts as a regulator for transcription, thus influencing host endo-reduplication at the infection site. This combination of homologous R genes, transcription factors, and resistance-related loci work together to provide robust defense against E. cruciferarum and other PM pathogens.

Non-host Resistance (NHR)

The most prevalent and important plant immunity, known as NHR, offers a broad- spectrum resistance to multiple pathogens (Mysore and Ryu 2004; Thordal-Christensen 2003). Such resistance prevents infections from pathogens that did not co-evolve alongside the host, mainly due to the lack of adapted fungal effectors or the presence of numerous resistance genes (Jones and Dangl 2006).

The NHR functions against fungal pathogens that are non-adapted like PM. The NHR has an independent, multi-component defense system, i.e., pre- and post-invasion immunities (Lipka et al. 2005; Wiermer et al. 2005; Stein et al. 2006; Meena et al. 2018). Arabidopsis NPR1 genes, which are important for systemic acquired resistance, are essential for the regulation of NHR (Chen et al. 2013; Zhong et al. 2015).

Previous studies on Arabidopsis have shown that it exhibits resistance to PMs, such as Blumeria graminis and E. pisi, that are not adapted to A. thaliana. These function through strong pre-invasion defenses that are mediated by PEN1 to PEN4 genes (Collins et al. 2003; Stein et al. 2006). The gene PEN1 codes a protein called syntaxin that prevents fungal penetration by forming ternary SNARE complexes (Assaad et al. 2004; Bhat et al. 2005; Kwon et al. 2008). PEN 2 and PEN 3 proteins also play roles in penetration resistance, with PEN 2 demonstrating myrosinase activity that can impede fungal infection (Lipka et al. 2005; Stein et al. 2006).

While the NHR response in pre-invasion stage is mediated by PEN (penetration gene), in the post-invasion stage, it is regulated by PM pathogen genes with increased disease susceptibility, phytoalexin-deficient, and genes associated with senescence (Saharan et al. 2019). The dual role of non-host resistance, where pre- and post-invasion immunity, regulated by various pathogen-related genes, collectively offer robust protection against non-adapted powdery mildew pathogens.

Genes Governing Intrinsic Resistance in Brassica Species and their Mechanisms Against E. cruciferarum

The resistance often has been controlled by Mendelian genes (Biffen 1905). Many research outcomes have accumulated the knowledge on different basis of plant resistance (Lucas 2011; Russel 2013). However, limited efforts have been made to explore this basis content for developing durable resistant genotypes. Recent advancements in genomic and transcript analysis techniques have significantly contributed to understanding the molecular pathway that contributes toward resistance against PM. Identified genes represent both SAR and NHR pathways and belong to R- gene (RPW8), SA signaling pathways (NPR1 and NPR2), calmodulin binding protein (MLO), transcription factors (WRKY70), etc. (Table 4).

A recent transcriptome analysis using RNA-seq data on two B. napus cultivars, displaying a contrasting range of resistance against powdery mildew disease, found that gene expressions involved during pectin modification and degradation were at elevated levels in resistant cultivar in comparison to susceptible. These genes included PM resistant5 (PMR5), polygalacturonase inhibitor1 (PGIP1), pectin methyl esterase inhibitor 9 (PMEI9), and reduced wall acetylation2 (RWA2) (Zhang et al. 2022). Studies conducted in Arabidopsis and other crops have recently confirmed that members of these gene families, such as PMR, PGIP, PMEI, and RWA, are strongly linked with susceptibility or resistance to pathogen (Engelsdorf et al. 2017; Lionetti et al. 2017). These studies highlight specific gene families and molecular pathways that play a key role in developing durable resistance against powdery mildew, emphasizing the potential for utilizing advanced genomic techniques to enhance resistance breeding strategies in Brassica species and other crops.

Table 4. Genes Along with their Functions Conferring Resistance in Crucifer’s Species Against Powdery Mildews

Major R Genes Identified for Brassica Powdery Mildew Resistance

Status of RPW8 gene in cultivated Brassica species

The major concern to ascertain durable resistance is whether resistance genes (R) after undergoing diploidization remain present or are lost in Brassica species. For instance, it was discovered that B. rapa and B. oleracea each have four homologs of the RPW8 gene. However, in B. napus (Bn), which is a cross between B. oleracea (Bo) and B. rapa (Br), seven homologs (RPW8) were observed. It was unclear whether these genes were lost in B. napus and through what evolutionary process (Li et al. 2016). The findings suggested that, although, BoHR homolog originating from B. oleracea remained largely unchanged, the BrHR homolog introduced from B. rapa displayed comparatively more variability within the genome of B. napus due to evolutionary processes such as gene loss, deletion, insertion, substitution, mutation, and intragenic recombination. Furthermore, the BnHR genes, although shared high sequence similarity with BoHR genes, the absence of homologs in B. napus accessions was explained through intragenic recombination involving two paralogs and two orthologs. Additionally, subcellular localization studies were done by fusing truncated BnHRa and BnHRb at the C-terminus, as well as full length BnHR with Yellow Fluorescent Protein (YFP). It was found that the BnHRb-YFP and BnHRa-YFP predominantly present at the extra-haustorial membrane encompassing the haustorium of PM pathogen. The study also revealed the role of these genes in induction of cell death leading to improved resistance against PM disease in Arabidopsis by ectopic expression studies (Li et al. 2016).

BjNPR1 gene

The non-expressor of PR genes family, having NPR1, NPR3, and NPR4, is extremely important in signaling pathway of the salicylic acid (SA) for plant defense. NPR1 acts as a positive regulator by activating (PR) genes upon SA accumulation during pathogen infection. Both NPR3 and NPR4 serve as negative regulators and SA receptors, controlling NPR1 activity by facilitating its degradation, ensuring a balanced immune response. The overexpressed BjNPR1 in transgenic B. juncea presented increased resistance to E. cruciferarum and A. brassicae, its involvement in broad-spectrum disease resistance is shown by its delayed symptom development and decreased disease severity (Ali et al. 2017).

Mildew Locus O (MLO) proteins

The MLO gene family plays a pivotal role in pathogen-host interactions and offering resistance to PM diseases. A transmembrane protein that the wild-type MLO gene produces is implicated in increasing powdery mildew susceptibility by aiding fungal entry and establishment within the host plant. This susceptibility pathway is disrupted by the loss-of-function mutations in MLO genes, which strengthens the plant defense against the pathogen. The significance of the MLO gene in improving plant resistance to PM has been highlighted by recent developments in gene editing technology (Shi et al. 2022). In Arabidopsis, studies have identified PMR2, which encodes MLO2, as a crucial regulator promoting compatibility between PM species (Consonni et al. 2006). MLO-2 aids in PM pathogen entry into plant cells, along with the close paralogs MLO6 and MLO12 (Panstruga 2005). These MLO genes are part of membrane proteins having a conserved role in plant defense (Devoto et al. 2003). Arabidopsis possesses a group of 15 MLO gene, among which MLO2, MLO6, and MLO12 are particularly influential in PM compatibility (Collins et al. 2003). The MLO proteins interact with calmodulin, influencing defense responses independently of signaling pathways such as SA or JA/ET (Bhat et al. 2005). The presence of MLO is crucial for E. cruciferarum infection, with pathogens utilizing MLO functions to inhibit host defense responses (Panstruga 2005). In rapeseed , mutating the BnMLO6 gene resulted in significant resistance to E. cruciferarum and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Shi et al. 2022). Moreover, resistant plants showed lower expression levels of the susceptibility genes MLO6 and MLO12, demonstrating their critical function in PM resistance (Zhang et al. 2022). Triple mutant devoid of AtMLO2, AtMLO6, and AtMLO12 exhibited nearly total resistance against E. cruciferarum infections (Consonni et al. 2006). Above-mentioned studies demonstrate the critical role of MLO genes in facilitating PM susceptibility and highlight the potential of gene-editing technologies, like CRISPR/Cas9, to disrupt MLO pathways and significantly enhance resistance to powdery mildew in various crops.

Fig. 2. Image describing different pathways for resistance against powdery mildew pathogen

Upon pathogenic invasion, powdery mildew pathogens release PAMPs and DAMPs. These molecules are recognized by PRRs present on the host plant cell surface, triggering a MAPK cascade that leads to a plant defense response. Simultaneously, the pathogen releases effector molecules that interact with resistance (R) proteins, typically containing LRR, (TIR), and S/TK domains, activating R genes to halt pathogen spread. Another defense pathway involves calcium signaling, which activates NPR1 protein, leading to the accumulation of salicylic acid (SA)-responsive transcription factors such as WRKY and AP2/ERF. Plants with the EDR1 mutation show increased expression of genes linked to the endomembrane system and reactive oxygen species (ROS) generation, indicating that EDR1-mediated immunity against powdery mildew may rely heavily on the secretory pathway. Furthermore, the MLO (Mildew Locus O) gene family plays an essential part in pathogen-plant interactions; MLO genes of the wild type increase vulnerability by enabling fungal entry. This susceptibility pathway is disrupted by loss-of-function mutations in MLO genes, strengthening the plant’s defense against the pathogen.

Arabidopsis RPW8

Crop breeding has made considerable use of disease resistance genes (R-genes) to create durable disease-resistant cultivars to reduce crop losses by diseases. Resistance to PM fungus can be introgressed in many plant species, and R-genes inherited dominantly or semi-dominantly provide unique protection as a supplementary defense mechanism (Bai et al. 2005; Marone et al. 2013). Plant populations naturally contain numerous allelic variants of R-genes. Previous studies indicate PM resistance in the model plant Arabidopsis is often polygenic, with the RPW8 gene being a significant QTL. Subsequent studies identified additional RPW genes ranging from RPW6 to RPW13 and also including semi-dominant resistance loci, RPW1, RPW2, RPW4, and RPW5, mapped on chromosomes 2, 3, 4, and 5, respectively (Adam et al. 1996; Wilson et al. 2001). However, RPW8 emerged as a vital contributor to natural resistance and is present in accessions such as Shahdara, Co3, Do00, Ei4, 5, Kas1, Ms0, Nok3, and Wa11 (Wilson et al. 2001; Xiao et al. 2001; Gollner et al. 2008). The RPW8 locus in the accession Ma0 consists of two genes, RPW8.1 and RPW8.2. The combination provides resistance to PM pathogens (Xiao et al. 2001). Unlike typical R genes that offer isolate-specific resistance (Martin et al. 2003), RPW8-mediated resistance activates PR genes, leading to a hypersensitive response (HR) marked by H₂O₂ accumulation, cell death, and callose deposition upon pathogen attack (Xiao et al. 2001; Xiao et al. 2003; Xiao et al. 2005; Gollner et al. 2008). Additionally, enhanced gene expression of these has been linked to formation of necrotic spots associated with hypersensitive response-like activity induced by elevated SA levels, in the transgenic line S24 (Saharan et al. 2019). RPW8.1 is a broad-spectrum resistance gene that balances plant immunity by feedback regulation of WRKY51 transcription factor (Yang et al. 2024). Furthermore, another study has also shown that the promoters of RPW8.1 and RPW8.2 genes are essential for resistance (Xiao et al. 2003). These insights into the role of RPW8 and its associated allelic variants underscore the potential for harnessing these genes in breeding programs to develop durable, broad-spectrum resistance against powdery mildew in various crops, ultimately improving agricultural resilience and productivity.

Transcription Factors (TFs) Regulating Resistance in Brassica spp. against E. cruciferarum

Transcriptional regulators in plants can be activated either directly through pathogen receptors or via signal transduction by MAP kinases (Shen et al. 2007). In Arabidopsis, WRKY TFs, such as WRKY18, WRKY33, and WRKY40, are crucial for camalexin biosynthesis, contributing to powdery mildew (PM) resistance (Qiu et al. 2008; Pandey et al. 2010; Mao et al. 2011). WRKY70 is necessary for activating SA pathway and provides resistance against multiple pathogens. Interestingly, WRKY-18 and 40 also plays an important role by negatively regulating defense genes against Golovinomyces orontii, with double mutants showing complete resistance to infection (Shen et al. 2007). In barley, WRKY1 and WRKY2, which are homologous to WRKY18 and WRKY40, interact with MLA immune receptors (Shen et al. 2007). Under normal conditions, they suppress defense genes, but upon pathogen detection, MLA displaces them, enhancing defense against Blumeria graminis f. sp. hordei (Bgh). NAC TFs, such as the barley gene NAC6 and its homolog ATAF1 in Arabidopsis, are also key regulators of early defense responses to PM (Jensen et al. 2007). Silencing these genes reduces resistance, while over-expression enhances it, indicating their role in pre-haustorial defense mechanisms. In cruciferous plants, WRKY transcription factors and the overexpression of various resistance genes (e.g., MLO, PEN, PMR, MAPK, EDR, PAD3, MPK3, MPR1, EDS5, SNARE, PAD4, RLCKs, and KDL) are critical for effective defense against PM. These studies highlight the pivotal role of transcription factors, particularly WRKY and NAC, along with various resistance genes, in regulating complex defense pathways, highlighting their potential for enhancing powdery mildew resistance through targeted genetic interventions in cruciferous plants (Saharan et al. 2019).

Future Strategies on Genetics and Genomic Approaches for Augmenting Resistance in Rapeseed-Mustard Against E. cruciferarum

Molecular breeding is of utmost importance for enhancing resistance to pests and diseases in Brassicaceae crops. It involves precise breeding, enrichment of genetic diversity, broad-spectrum resistance to multiple pathogens, and development of climate-resilient genotypes, etc. Interspecific hybridization within the Brassica genus shows promising results for crop enhancement due to the close genetic relationships between species. For instance, B. napus originates from the wide hybridization among B. oleracea and B. rapa resulting in a distinct species. In contrast, other species such as B. juncea, B. carinata, and B. nigra share common genomes. The PM resistance was introduced in B. oleracea, their BC₁ progeny and interspecific hybrid plants were produced using embryo culture and sexual crosses procedures by involving accession PI 360883 (B. carinata) and B. oleracea cultivars Cecile and Titleist. Plant morphology and RAPD evaluation confirmed the origin of B. carinata, used as maternal parent to obtain hybrids via embryo rescue culture. Amid these populations, eight BC₁ plants and all interspecific hybrids displayed resistance to PM (Tonguc and Griffiths 2004). B. carinata cv., ‘White flower’ was identified as immune under field and greenhouse conditions after the evaluation of 102 germplasm of B. napus as well as other Brassicas for resistance to PM disease. Inclusion of B. carinata cytoplasm, yellow petals, and male sterility, true F₁ hybrids were produced without embryo rescue. Morphological characteristics, seed quality, and molecular marker analysis confirms the hybrids and their progenies. Breeding lines such as W3PS.1, W7.6, W7.4, W7.1, W8.1, and W8.3 resulted in resistance or moderate resistance reaction to PM (Gong et al. 2020). Previous studies identified two semi-dominant genes governing PM resistance in Indian mustard (Kapadia et al. 2019). Using molecular markers OI10-B12 and OI10-C01, they distinguished between susceptible and resistant bulks in the cross GM-3 × Pusa Swarnim. These markers are valuable for identifying disease resistance across various Brassica species, especially because the ‘C’ genome might have naturally introgressed into different genotypes through outcrossing. Molecular markers closely associated with various resistance genes are crucial for enhancing the selection of trait, especially for combining multiple distinct genes within the same genetic background (Tanksley et al. 1989). The development of resistant Brassica species against diseases can be accelerated by utilizing genetic and molecular marker-based techniques, thereby improving sustainable agriculture and world food security. Transgenic approaches have proven to be effective in enhancing disease resistance in rapeseed mustard (B. juncea), a crucial oilseed crop. Through incorporating specific genes known for their defensive properties, genetically modified plants with improved resistance to various pathogens have been developed. An example includes the chitinase gene, which has been demonstrated to provide resistance against fungal infections. Chitin is degraded by chitinase enzymes, which are essential to plant defense. Plants that have their chitinase genes overexpressed are considerably more resistant to fungus-related diseases. In a previous study, the introduction of chitinase gene was done from rice (Oryza sativa) into B. juncea via Agrobacterium mediated transformation. Transgenic plants of B. juncea evaluated for resistance against two predominant fungal pathogens, i.e., A. brassicae and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. A significant decrease in disease severity was recorded in transgenic lines compared to control plants (Grover et al. 2015). Chitinase enzyme effectively degrades the cell wall of fungi and reduces the growth and development of the pathogens. So far advancements in molecular breeding, transgenic, and genome editing approaches can play a crucial role in generating broad-spectrum resistance to PM pathogen.

Fig. 3. Proposed genomic era high-efficiency integrated breeding (HIB) model

Genome Editing and CRISPR/Cas9 Technology in Brassica Powdery Mildew Resistance

Globally, systematic, strategic, and practical research approaches focusing on the genetic development of cruciferous crop plants draw on a diverse range of associated subjects. The control of many prevailing plant pathogens has been achieved since the development of molecular tools and techniques in the field of molecular plant pathology. Among contemporary methods, an efficient and desirable genetic approach for managing increasingly problematic plant diseases is the modification of intrinsic genetic contents through genome editing technologies. This technology has created more interest within the scientific community due to the effectiveness, versatility, and simplicity associated with the genome editing tool CRISPR (Clustered Interspaced Palindromic Repeats) (Banerjee et al. 2023). It offers rapid selection and modification of target genomic areas by deletion or addition of specific base pairs, facilitating the development of desired traits, with special reference to disease resistance genes.

The genome editing (CRISPR) method has shown potential in altering numerous desirable traits in a various agricultural commodity, including rice, wheat, coffee, bananas, cassava, soybeans, and sweet oranges (Prado et al. 2024). This approach has also contributed to the introduction of genes conferring resistance to powdery mildew in some crops. For instance, the CRISPR/Cas9 system has been used to generate elite tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) lines, with the SlMLO1 knockout line targeting pathogen Oidium neolycopersici (Pramanik et al. 2021). There are sixteen MLO genes (MLO1 through MLO16) identified as the primary causes of powdery mildew susceptibility. Furthermore, Agrobacterium-mediated transformation is used to insert the DMR1 gene for PM resistance into the aromatic sweet basil plant (Ocimum basilicum) (Navet and Tian 2020). The target gene MLO-7 introduced in grapevines to combat the powdery mildew-causing Uncinula necator using CRISPR/Cas9 ribonucleoproteins (RNPs) led to enhanced resistance against the powdery mildew disease (Malnoy et al. 2016). Although a disease resistance mechanism in Brassica crops has not yet been established, a candidate gene, MYB28, has been introduced in broccoli (B. oleracea) to increase glucoraphanin content through protoplast transfection using RNPs (Kim et al. 2022). By replacing the RGEN RNP gene in place of the BolMYB28 gene, researchers successfully developed a broccoli cultivar with increased glucoraphanin contents. A recently published technique for editing the genome of the mustard crop (B. juncea) utilized cotyledon explants to introduce CRISPR components into the plant genome via an Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (Ahmad et al. 2024). The research output involves an expanded workflow and various steps for recovering genome-edited knockouts, further verification of the edits, and accurate recovery of the transgene-free genome edited plants, providing a robust foundation for future studies on CRISPR/cas9 technology. The emphasis is on developing multiple of disease-resistant mustard cultivars worldwide.

CONCLUSIONS

This comprehensive review has summarized published information about rapeseed-mustard, which is a significant edible oil crop, ranking closer to soybean and palm oil in context of its contribution in the edible oil market, in India. However, this crop faces a lot of challenges from both biotic and abiotic stresses, resulting in substantial losses in quality and production. Among the biotic stress, PM incited by E. cruciferarum poses a significant economic threat in mustard cultivation in India. Severe incidences encompass 17% to 29.5% yield loss in various Indian states. The Indian mustard cultivars grown across different regions of India are highly vulnerable to the infection of powdery mildew pathogen. Researchers worldwide have extensively investigated various aspects of PM in Brassica species. Many Brassica species and their wild relatives are rich sources of important candidate genes, especially those related to resistance against various stresses including biotrophic diseases. Studies focusing on varietal screening have disclosed the resistance levels of B. juncea to E. cruciferarum. Additionally, research has explored the genetic and genomic elements contributing to PM resistance in different B. juncea genotypes, aiming to offer empirical data and reliable markers for detecting resistant plant materials. The absence of clear scientific information regarding the resistance source for powdery mildew disease in B. juncea and its genetic traits has impeded comprehensive research efforts to combat this disease. Therefore, in this paper the authors explicitly reviewed different aspects about Brassica powdery mildew, its economic significance, and the cellular and molecular aspects of resistance mechanisms for sustainable management practices. Furthermore, molecular studies using a model plant like A. thaliana are crucial to analyze host-parasite interactions with the PM pathogen, particularly in economically significant hosts, such as rapeseed-mustard, Chinese cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, radish, turnip, horseradish, turnips, kohlrabi, kale, and rape. This review further contributes with a comprehensive understanding of plant defense mechanisms that offer self-sustained crop protection and reduce stress factors, promoting eco-friendly and sustainable crop production.

In future investigations on B. juncea, emphasis should be placed on diverse aspects of PM, encompassing host-pathogen interactions, variability, racial profiling, virulence patterns, QTL mapping, and molecular mechanisms underlying pathogenesis. Identifying effector molecules and their corresponding R-genes will further enhance our understanding about resistance mechanisms for future programmes on resistance breeding. Creating innovative pre-breeding materials by utilizing resistant crop wild relatives, whether closely or distantly related, and employing marker-assisted selection methods can streamline Brassica improvement initiatives. Implementing strategies to manipulate host factors targeted by the PM pathogen will greatly contribute to the advancement of PM management techniques within Brassica crop improvement programs.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thankfully acknowledge the Alliance of Bioversity International and CIAT, Asia-India Office, NASC Complex, Pusa Campus, New Delhi 110 012; DST-WOS-A, Department of Atomic Energy (DAE), Board of Research in Nuclear Science, Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, Trombay, Mumbai, 400 085.

REFERENCES CITED

Adam, L., and Somerville, S. C. (1996). “Genetic characterization of five powdery mildew disease resistance loci in Arabidopsis thaliana,” The Plant Journal 9(3), 341-356. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-313x.1996.09030341.x

Aeenfar, H. (2006). Identification of Powdery Mildew Fungi (Erysiphaceae) and their Hosts in Mashhad and Mashhad Vicinity, Thesis, College of Science, Tehran Noor University, Iran.

Ahmad, M., Naseem, I., Rashid, B., Yasmeen, A., and Hussain, Q. (2024). “A technique for editing the genome of mustard crop (Brassica juncea) using cotyledon explants and Agrobacterium-mediated transformation,” Journal of Plant Biotechnology 98(3), 457-469. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-0716-3782-1_20

Ale-Agha, N., Boyle, H., Braun, U., Butin, H., Jage, H., Kummer, V., and Shin, H. D. (2008). “Taxonomy, host range and distribution of some powdery mildew fungi (Erysiphales),” Schlechtendalia 17, 39-54.

Ali, S., Mir, Z.A., Tyagi, A., Mehari, H., Meena, R.P., Bhat, J.A., Yadav, P., Papalou, P., Rawat, S. and Grover, A. (2017). “Overexpression of NPR1 in Brassica juncea confers broad spectrum resistance to fungal pathogens,” Frontiers in Plant Science 8, article 1693. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01693

Alkooranee, J. T., Liu, S., Aledan, T. R., Yin, Y., and Li, M. (2015). “First report of powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on Brassica napus in China,” Plant Disease 99(11), 1651-1651. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-03-15-0351-PDN

Amano, K. (1986). Host Range and Geographical Distribution of the Powdery Mildew Fungi, Japan Scientific Societies Press, Tokyo, Japan.

Assaad, F. F., Qiu, J. L., Youngs, H., Ehrhardt, D., Zimmerli, L., Kalde, M., and Thordal-Christensen, H. (2004). “The PEN1 syntaxin defines a novel cellular compartment upon fungal attack and is required for the timely assembly of papillae,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 17(4), 361-369. DOI: 10.1091/mbc.e04-02-0140

Attaluri, S., and Dharavath, R. (2023). “Novel plant disease detection techniques-a brief review,” Molecular Biology Reports 50(11), 9677-9690. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-023-08838-y

Attanayake, R. N., Glawe, D. A., Dugan, F. M., and Chen, W. (2009). “Erysiphe trifolii causing powdery mildew of lentil (Lens culinaris),” Plant Disease 93(8), 797-803. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-93-8-0797

Babaeizad, V., Imani, J., Kogel, K. H., Eichmann, R., and Huckelhoven, R. (2009). “Over-expression of the cell death regulator BAX inhibitor-1 in barley confers reduced or enhanced susceptibility to distinct fungal pathogens,” Theoretical and Applied Genetics 118, 455-463. DOI 10.1007/s00122-008-0912-2

Bai, Y., Huang, C. C., van der Hulst, R., Meijer-Dekens, F., Bonnema, G., and Lindhout, P. (2003). “QTLs for tomato powdery mildew resistance (Oidium lycopersici) in Lycopersicon parviflorum G1. 1601 co-localize with two qualitative powdery mildew resistance genes,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 16(2), 169-176. DOI: 10.1094/ MPMI.2003.16.2.169

Bai, Y., Pavan, S., Zheng, Z., Zappel, N. F., Reinstädler, A., Lotti, C., De Giovanni, C., Ricciardi, L., Lindhout, P., Visser, R., et al. (2008). “Naturally occurring broad-spectrum powdery mildew resistance in a Central American tomato accession is caused by loss of Mlo function,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 21(1), 30-39. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-21-1-0030

Bai, Y., van der Hulst, R., Bonnema, G., Marcel, T. C., Meijer-Dekens, F., Niks, R. E., and Lindhout, P. (2005). “Tomato defense to Oldium neolycopersici: Dominant OI genes confer isolate-dependent resistance via a different mechanism than recessive oI-2,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 18(4), 354-362. DOI: DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-18-0354

Bak, S., Tax, F. E., Feldmann, K. A., Galbraith, D. W., and Feyereisen, R. (2001). “CYP83B1, a cytochrome P450 at the metabolic branch point in auxin and indole glucosinolate biosynthesis in Arabidopsis,” The Plant Cell 13(1), 101-111. DOI: DOI: 10.1105/tpc.13.1.101

Banerjee, S., Mukherjee, A., and Kundu, A. (2023). “The current scenario and future perspectives of transgenic oilseed mustard by CRISPR-Cas,” Molecular Biology Reports 50(9), 7705-7728. DOI: 10.1007/s11033-023-08660-6

Bappammal, M., Hosagoudar, V. B., and Udaiyan, K. (1995). “Powdery mildews of Tamil Nadu, India,” New Botanist 22, 81-175.

Baud, S., and Lepiniec, L. (2010). “Physiological and developmental regulation of seed oil production,” Progress in Lipid Research 49(3), 235-249. DOI: 10.1016/j.plipres.2010.01.001.

Bednarek, P., and Osbourn, A. (2009). “Plant-microbe interactions: Chemical diversity in plant defense,” Science 324(5928), 746-748. DOI: 10.1126/science.1171661

Beers, E. P., Jones, A. M., and Dickerman, A. W. (2004). “The S8 serine, C1A cysteine and A1 aspartic protease families in Arabidopsis,” Phytochemistry 65(1), 43-58. DOI: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2003.09.005

Bhat, R. A., Miklis, M., Schmelzer, E., Schulze-Lefert, P., and Panstruga, R. (2005). “Recruitment and interaction dynamics of plant penetration resistance components in a plasma membrane microdomain,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 102(8), 3135-3140. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0500012102

Bhosle, S. M., and Makandar, R. (2021). “Comparative transcriptome of compatible and incompatible interaction of Erysiphe pisi and garden pea reveals putative defense and pathogenicity factors,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology 97(3), article ID fiab006. DOI: DOI: 10.1093/femsec/fiab006

Biffen, R. H. (1905). “Mendel’s laws of inheritance and wheat breeding,” The Journal of Agricultural Science 1(1), 4-48. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859600000137

Boesewinkel, H. J. (1977). “Identification of Erysiphaceae by conidial characteristics,” Revue de Mycologie 41(4), 493-507.

Bolay, A., Clerc, P., Braun, U., Gotz, M., and Takamatsu, S. (2021). “New species, new records and first sequence data of powdery mildews (Erysiphaceae) from Europe with special emphasis on Switzerland,” Austrian Journal of Mycology 28, 131-160.

Boller, T., and Felix, G. (2009). “A renaissance of elicitors: Perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors,” Annual Review of Plant Biology 60(1), 379-406. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105346

Borges, R. C., Santos, M. D., Veloso, J. S., Fonseca, M. E. N., Boiteux, L. S., Nascimento, W. M., and Reis, A. (2023). “Leveillula taurica causing powdery mildew of chickpea in Brazil,” Journal of Phytopathology 171(2-3), 63-66. DOI: 10.1111/jph.13158

Braun, U., and Cook, R. T. A (2012). Taxonomic Manual of Erysiphales (Powdery Mildews), CBS Biodiversity Series, Centraalbureau voor Schimmelcultures, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Cao, Y., Liang, Y., Tanaka, K., Nguyen, C. T., Jedrzejczak, R. P., Joachimiak, A., and Stacey, G. (2014). “The kinase LYK5 is a major chitin receptor in Arabidopsis and forms a chitin-induced complex with related kinase CERK1,” eLife 3, article e03719. DOI: 10.7554/eLife.03766

Chadar, V., Bhanwar, R. R., Nirala, Y. P. S., and Rana, L. (2020). “Screening of Rapeseed and Mustard (Brassica) germplasm and breeding material against Erysiphe cruciferarum causing powdery mildew under Bastar plateau of Chhattishgarh,” International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences 9(5), 180-185. DOI: 10.20546/ijcmas.2020

Chandran, D., Tai, Y. C., Hather, G., Dewdney, J., Denoux, C., Burgess, D. G., Ausubel, F. M., Speed, T. P., and Wildermuth, M. C. (2009). “Temporal global expression data reveal known and novel salicylate-impacted processes and regulators mediating powdery mildew growth and reproduction on Arabidopsis,” Plant Physiology 149(3), 1435-1451. DOI: 10.1104/pp.108.132985

Chen, J. C., Lu, H. C., Chen, C. E., Hsu, H. F., Chen, H. H., and Yeh, H. H. (2013). “The NPR1 ortholog PhaNPR1 is required for the induction of PhaPR1 in Phalaenopsis aphrodite,” Botanical Studies 54, 1-11. DOI: 10.1186/1999-3110-54-31

Choi, H. W., Choi, Y. J., Kim, D. S., Hwang, I. S., Choi, D. S., Kim, N. H., Lee, D. H., Shin, H. D., Nam, J. S., and Hwang, B. K. (2009). “First report of powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on Arabidopsis thaliana in Korea,” The Plant Pathology Journal 25(1), 86-90. DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.2009.25.1.086

Choudhary, D. K., Prakash, A., and Johri, B. N. (2007). “Induced systemic resistance (ISR) in plants: mechanism of action,” Indian Journal of Microbiology 47, 289-297. DOI: 10.1007/s12088-007-0054-2

Christiansen, K. M., Gu, Y., Rodibaugh, N., and Innes, R. W. (2011). “Negative regulation of defence signalling pathways by the EDR1 protein kinase,” Molecular Plant Pathology 12(8), 746-758. DOI: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00708.x

Ciola, V., and Cipollini, D. (2011). “Distribution and host range of a powdery mildew fungus infecting garlic mustard, Alliaria petiolata, in southwestern Ohio,” The American Midland Naturalist 166(1), 40-52. DOI: 10.1674/0003-0031-166.1.40

Collins, N. C., Thordal-Christensen, H., Lipka, V., Bau, S., Kombrink, E., Qiu, J. L., Huckelhoven, R., Stein, M., Freialdenhoven, A., Somerville, S, C., et al. (2003). “SNARE-protein-mediated disease resistance at the plant cell wall,” Nature 425(6962), 973-977. DOI: 10.1038/nature02076

Consonni, C., Humphry, M. E., Hartmann, H. A., Livaja, M., Durner, J., Westphal, L., Vogel, J., Volker, L., Kemmerling, B., Schulze-Lefert, P., et al. (2006). “Conserved requirement for a plant host cell protein in powdery mildew pathogenesis,” Nature Genetics 38(6), 716-720. DOI: 10.1038/ng1806

Cooper, J. (2013). “Mycological Notes 25: The status of names of powdery mildews in New Zealand,” New Zealand Mycological Society, New Zealand.

Dang, J. K., Sangwan, M. S., Mehta, N., and Kaushik, C. D. (2000). ”Multiple disease resistance against four fungal foliar diseases of rapeseed-mustard,” Indian Phytopathology 53(4), 455-458.

Dange, S. R. S., Patel, R. L., Patel, S. I., and Patel, K. K. (2002). “Assessment of losses in yield due to powdery mildew disease in mustard under north Gujarat conditions,” Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 32, 249-250.

Dange, S. R. S., Patel, R. L., Patel, S. I., and Patel, K. K. (2003). “Effect of planting time on the appearance and severity of white rust and powdery mildew diseases of mustard,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Research 37(2), 154-156.

de Jesús Yáñez-Morales, M., Braun, U., Minnis, A. M., and Tovar-Pedraza, J. M. (2009). Some new records and new species of powdery mildew fungi from Mexico,” Schlechtendalia 19, 47-61.

Devoto, A., Hartmann, H. A., Piffanelli, P., Elliott, C., Simmons, C., Taramino, G., Goh, C. S., Cohen, F. E., Emerson, B. C., Schulze-Lefert, P., et al. (2003). “Molecular phylogeny and evolution of the plant-specific seven-transmembrane MLO family,” Journal of Molecular Evolution 56, 77-88. DOI: 10.1007/s00239-002-2382-5

Eichmann, R., Bischof, M., Weis, C., Shaw, J., Lacomme, C., Schweizer, P., Duchkov, D., Hensel, G., Kumlehn, J., and Hückelhoven, R. (2010). “BAX INHIBITOR-1 is required for full susceptibility of barley to powdery mildew,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 23(9), 1217-1227. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-23-9-1217

Ellinger, D., Glöckner, A., Koch, J., Naumann, M., Stürtz, V., Schütt, K., Manisseri, C., Somerville, S. C., and Voigt, C. A. (2014). “Interaction of the Arabidopsis GTPase RabA4c with its effector PMR4 results in complete penetration resistance to powdery mildew,” The Plant Cell 26(7), 3185-3200. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.114.127779

Ellinger, D., Naumann, M., Falter, C., Zwikowics, C., Jamrow, T., Manisseri, C., Somerville, S. C., and Voigt, C. A. (2013). “Elevated early callose deposition results in complete penetration resistance to powdery mildew in Arabidopsis,” Plant Physiology 161(3), 1433-1444. DOI: 10.1104/pp.112.211011

Ellis, M. B., and Ellis, J. P. (1985). Microfungi on Land Plants. An identification Handbook, Croom Helm, Kent, UK.

Engelsdorf, T., Will, C., Hofmann, J., Schmitt, C., Merritt, B. B., Rieger, L., Frenger, M. S., Marschall, A., Franke, R. B., Pattathil, S., et al. (2017). “Cell wall composition and penetration resistance against the fungal pathogen Colletotrichum higginsianum are affected by impaired starch turnover in Arabidopsis mutants,” Journal of Experimental Botany 68(3), 701-713. DOI: 10.1093/jxb/erw434

Ershad, D. (1971). “Contribution to the knowledge of Erysiphaceae of Iran,” Iranian Journal of Plant Pathology 6(3–4), 50-60.

Ershad, D. (1977). Fungi of Iran, Ministry of Agricultural and Natural Resources, Agricultural and Natural Resources Research Organization, Plant Pests and diseases Research Institute, Tehran, Iran.

FAO. (2022). Global Production and Trade of Rapeseed-mustard, Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy.

Farr, D. F., and Rossman, A. Y. (2009). Fungal Databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology Laboratory, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, MD, USA.

Garibaldi, A., Bertetti, D., and Gullino, M. L. (2009). “Outbreak of powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on spider flower (Cleome hassleriana) in Italy,” Plant Disease 93(9), 963-963. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-93-9-0963C

Glawe, D. A. (2008). “The powdery mildews: A review of the world’s most familiar (yet poorly known) plant pathogens,” Annual Review of Phytopathology 46(1), 27-51. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.46.081407.104740

Gollner, K., Schweizer, P., Bai, Y., and Panstruga, R. (2008). “Natural genetic resources of Arabidopsis thaliana reveal a high prevalence and unexpected phenotypic plasticity of RPW8‐mediated powdery mildew resistance,” New Phytologist 177(3), 725-742. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02339.x

Gong, Q., Dai, C. Y., Zhang, X. H., Wang, X. L., Huang, Z., Xu, A. X., Dong, J. G., and Yu, C. Y. (2020). “Towards breeding of rapeseed (Brassica napus) with alien cytoplasm and powdery mildew resistance from Ethiopian mustard (Brassica carinata),” Breeding Science 70(3), 387-395. DOI: 10.1270/jsbbs.20017

Gunasinghe, N., You, M. P., Lanoiselet, V., Eyres, N., and Barbetti, M. J. (2013). “First report of powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on Brassica campestris var. pekinensis, B. carinata, Eruca sativa, E. vesicaria in Australia and on B. rapa and B. oleracea var. capitata in Western Australia,” Plant Disease 97(9), 1256-1256. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-03-13-0299-PDN

Hardham, A. R. (2007). “Cell biology of fungal and Oomycete infection of plants,” in: Biology of the Fungal Cell, R. J. Howard, and N. A. R. Gow (eds.), Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, pp. 251-289. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-540-70618-2_11

Hare, R. M. (1994). Influence of Dates of Sowing on Powdery Mildew of Rapeseed-Mustard, Doctoral Dissertation, Vasantrao Naik Marathwada Krishi Vidyapeeth, Parbhani, India.

Howing, T., Dann, M., Hoefle, C., Hückelhoven, R., and Gietl, C. (2017). “Involvement of Arabidopsis thaliana endoplasmic reticulum KDEL-tailed cysteine endopeptidase 1 (AtCEP1) in powdery mildew-induced and AtCPR5-controlled cell death,” PLoS One 12(8), article e0183870. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0183870

Hu, P., Meng, Y., and Wise, R. P. (2009). “Functional contribution of chorismate synthase, anthranilate synthase, and chorismate mutase to penetration resistance in barley–powdery mildew interactions,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 22(3), 311-320. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-22-3-0311

Huckelhoven, R. (2005). “Powdery mildew susceptibility and biotrophic infection strategies,” FEMS Microbiology Letters 245(1), 9-17. DOI: 10.1016/j.femsle.2005.03.001

Huckelhoven, R. (2007). “Cell wall–associated mechanisms of disease resistance and susceptibility,” Annual Review of Phytopathology 45(1), 101-127. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.45.062806.094325

Jacobs, A. K., Lipka, V., Burton, R. A., Panstruga, R., Strizhov, N., Schulze-Lefert, P., and Fincher, G. B. (2003). “An Arabidopsis callose synthase, GSL5, is required for wound and papillary callose formation,” The Plant Cell 15(11), 2503-2513. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.016097

Jensen, M. K. (2007). Functional Genomic Approaches and Genome-wide Transcript Profiles for the Investigation of Plant Responses Towards Powdery Mildew Infection [including 4 Papers], Doctoral Dissertation, University of Copenhagen, Department of Plant Biology, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Jones, J. D., and Dangl, J. L. (2006). “The plant immune system,” Nature 444(7117), 323-329. DOI: 10.1038/nature05286

Kanzaria, K. K., Dhruj, I. U., and Sahu, D. D. (2013). “Influence of weather parameters on powdery mildew disease of mustard under North Saurashtra agroclimatic zone,” Journal of Agrometeorology 15(1), 86-88. DOI: 10.54386/jam.v15i1.1450

Kapadia, V. N., Sasidharan, N., and Patel, D. A. (2019). “Identification of the SSR marker linked to powdery mildew resistant gene (s) in Brassica spp.,” Journal of Pharmacognosy and Phytochemistry 8(3), 388-395.

Karakaya, A. (1993). Evaluation of Brassica Species for Forage Production and Characterization of a Phytophthora sp. Associated with Brassica spp., Doctoral’s Thesis, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming.

Kaur, P., Li, C. X., Barbetti, M. J., You, M. P., Li, H., and Sivasithamparam, K. (2008). “First report of powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on Brassica juncea in Australia,” Plant Disease 92(4), 650-650. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS-92-4-0650C

Keen, N. T. (1993). “An overview of active disease defense in plant,” in: Mechanisms of Plant Defense Responses, B. Fritig, and M. Legrand (Eds.), Springer Dordrecht, Netherlands, pp. 3-11. DOI: 10.1007/978-94-011-1737-1

Khangura, R., MacLeod, W. J., and Aberra, M. (2011). Dynamics of Fungal Diseases of Canola, Western Australia, Department of Agriculture and Food Western Australia, Perth, Australia.

Khodaparast, S. A., Hedjaroude, G. A., Ershad, D., Zad, J., and Termeh, F. (2000). “A study on identification of Erysiphaceae in Gilan province, Iran (I),” Rostaniha 1(4), 53-63.

Kim, H., O’Connell, R., Maekawa‐Yoshikawa, M., Uemura, T., Neumann, U., and Schulze‐Lefert, P. (2014). “The powdery mildew resistance protein RPW 8.2 is carried on VAMP 721/722 vesicles to the extrahaustorial membrane of haustorial complexes,” The Plant Journal 79(5), 835-847. DOI: 10.1111/tpj.12591

Kim, Y. C., Ahn, W. S., Cha, A., Jie, E. Y., Kim, S. W., Hwang, B. H., and Lee, S. (2022). “Development of glucoraphanin-rich broccoli (Brassica oleracea var. italica) by CRISPR/Cas9-mediated DNA-free BolMYB28 editing,” Plant Biotechnology Reports 16(1), 123-132. DOI: 10.1007/s11816-021-00732-y

Kim, Y. S., Song, J. G., Lee, I. K., Yeo, W. H., and Yun, B. S. (2013). “Bacillus sp. BS061 suppresses powdery mildew and gray mold,” Mycobiology 41(2), 108-111. DOI: 10.5941/MYCO.2013.41.2.108

Koch, E., and Slusarenko, A. J. (1990). “Fungal pathogens of Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heyhn,” Botanica Helvetica 100(2), 257-268. DOI: 10.2307/3869093

Kohire, O. D., Rafi Ahmed, R. A., Chavan, S. S., and Khilare, V. C. (2008). “Yield losses amongst four varieties of mustard due to powdery mildew in Maharashtra,” Journal of Phytological Research 21(2), 331-332.

Kumar, R., Kalloo, G., and Singh, M. (2002). “Genetic analysis of resistance to powdery mildew (Elysiphe pisi) in pea (Pisum sativum),” The Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 72(3), 182-183.

Kumar, R., Kumar, M., Kumar, S., and Kumar, A. (2016). “Screening of pea (Pisum sativum L.) germplasm for growth, yield and resistance against powdery mildew under mid-hill conditions of Himachal Pradesh,” International Journal of Bio-resource and Stress Management 7(1), 119-125. DOI: 10.23910/IJBSM/2016.7.1.1286

Kumar, S., Prasad, R., Singh, D., Yadav, S. P., and Kumar, V. (2017). “Screening of Brassica germplasm and breeding material against Erysiphe cruciferarum causing powdery mildew of rapeseed mustard under artificial condition,” Environment and Ecology 35, 112-115.

Kwon, C., Bednarek, P., and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2008). “Secretory pathways in plant immune responses,” Plant Physiology 147(4), 1575-1583. DOI: 10.1104/pp.108.121566

Lavanya, K., Srikanth, T., Padmaja, D., and Balram, N. (2023). “Screening of mustard germplasm against powdery mildew (Erysiphe cruciferarum) and analysis of yield contributing characters,” International Journal of Environment and Climate Change 13(8), 1809-1820. DOI: 10.9734/ijecc/2023/v13i82135

Li, C., Bonnema, G., Che, D., Dong, L., Lindhout, P., Visser, R., and Bai, Y. (2007). “Biochemical and molecular mechanisms involved in monogenic resistance responses to tomato powdery mildew,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 20(9), 1161-1172. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-20-9-1161

Li, Q., Li, J., Sun, J. L., Ma, X. F., Wang, T. T., Berkey, R., Yang, H., Niu, Y. Z., Fan, J., Li, Y., et al. (2016). “Multiple evolutionary events involved in maintaining homologs of resistance to powdery mildew 8 in Brassica napus,” Frontiers in Plant Science 7, article 1065. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01065

Lionetti, V., Fabri, E., De Caroli, M., Hansen, A. R., Willats, W. G., Piro, G., and Bellincampi, D. (2017). “Three pectin methylesterase inhibitors protect cell wall integrity for Arabidopsis immunity to Botrytis,” Plant Physiology 173(3), 1844-1863. DOI: 10.1104/pp.16.01185

Lipka, U., Fuchs, R., and Lipka, V. (2008). “Arabidopsis non-host resistance to powdery mildews,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology 11(4), 404-411. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2008.04.004

Lipka, V., Dittgen, J., Bednarek, P., Bhat, R., Wiermer, M., Stein, M., Landtag, J., Brandt, W., Rosahl, S., Scheel, D., et al. (2005). “Pre- and post-invasion defenses both contribute to nonhost resistance in Arabidopsis,” Science 310(5751), 1180-1183. DOI: 10.1126/science.1119409

Lucas, J. A. (2011). “Advances in plant disease and pest management,” The Journal of Agricultural Science 149(S1), 91-114. DOI: 10.1017/S0021859610000997

Maekawa, T., Kufer, T. A., and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2011). “NLR functions in plant and animal immune systems: So far and yet so close,” Nature Immunology 12(9), 818-826. DOI: 10.1038/ni.2083

Makandar, R., Nalam, V., Chaturvedi, R., Jeannotte, R., Sparks, A. A., and Shah, J. (2010). “Involvement of salicylate and jasmonate signaling pathways in Arabidopsis interaction with Fusarium graminearum,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 23(7), 861-870. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI-23-7-0861

Malinovsky, F. G., Fangel, J. U., and Willats, W. G. (2014). “The role of the cell wall in plant immunity,” Frontiers in Plant Science 5, article 178. DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00178

Malnoy, M., Viola, R., Jung, M. H., Koo, O. J., Kim, S., Lee, K., and Woo, J. (2016). “Introducing MLO-7 gene in grapevines to combat powdery mildew,” Vitis 55(4), 153-161.

Mao, G., Meng, X., Liu, Y., Zheng, Z., Chen, Z., and Zhang, S. (2011). “Phosphorylation of a WRKY transcription factor by two pathogen-responsive MAPKs drives phytoalexin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis,” The Plant Cell 23(4), 1639-1653. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.111.084996

Marone, D., Russo, M. A., Laido, G., De Vita, P., Papa, R., Blanco, A., Gadaleta, A., Rubiales, D., and Mastrangelo, A. M. (2013). “Genetic basis of qualitative and quantitative resistance to powdery mildew in wheat: From consensus regions to candidate genes,” BMC Genomics 14, 1-17. DOI: 10.1186/1471-2164-14-562

Martin, G. B., Bogdanove, A. J., and Sessa, G. (2003). “Understanding the functions of plant disease resistance proteins,” Annual Review of Plant Biology 54(1), 23-61. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.54.031902.135035

Meena, P. D., and Rai, P. K. (2023). Integrated Disease Management in Rapeseed-Mustard-Based Cropping System, in: Integrated Pest Management in Diverse Cropping Systems, Apple Academic Press, Point Pleasant, NJ, USA, pp. 351-383. DOI: 10.1201/9781003304524-13

Meena, P. D., Awasthi, R. P., Chattopadhyay, C., Kolte, S. J., and Kumar, A. (2019). “Field resistance in Indian mustard germplasm against powdery mildew disease,” Indian Phytopathology 72(4), 583-589.

Meena, P. D., Mehta, N., Rai, P. K., and Saharan, G. S. (2018). “Geographical distribution of rapeseed-mustard powdery mildew disease in India,” Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 48(3), 284-302.

Mehta, N., Singh, K., and Sangwan, M. S. (2008). “Assessment of yield losses and evaluation of different varieties/genotypes of mustard against powdery mildew in Haryana,” Plant Disease Research 23(1), 55-59.

Mert-Turk, F., Gul, M. K., and Egesel, C. O. (2008). “Nitrogen and fungicide applications against Erysiphe cruciferarum affect quality components of oilseed rape,” Mycopathologia 165, 27-35. DOI: 10.1007/s11046-007-9070-3

Mir, Z. A., Ali, S., Tyagi, A., Yadav, P., Chandrashekar, N., El-Sheikh, M. A., Alansi, S. and Grover, A. (2023). “Comparative analysis of powdery mildew disease resistance and susceptibility in Brassica Coenospecies,” Agronomy 13(4), article 1033. DOI: 10.3390/agronomy13041033

Mirzaee, M. R., Khodaparast, A., Sajedi, S., Javadi, S. B., and Saberi, M. H. (2010). “Malcolmia africana, a new host for powdery mildew disease caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum in Iran,” Australasian Plant Disease Notes 5(1), 101-102. DOI: 10.1071/DN10036

Muthamilarasan, M., and Prasad, M. (2013). “Plant innate immunity: An updated insight into defense mechanism,” Journal of Biosciences 38, 433-449. DOI: 10.1007/s12038-013-9302-2

Mysore, K. S., and Ryu, C. M. (2004). “Nonhost resistance: How much do we know,” Trends in Plant Science 9(2), 97-104. DOI: 10.1007/s12038-013-9302-2

Nafisi, M., Goregaoker, S., Botanga, C. J., Glawischnig, E., Olsen, C. E., Halkier, B. A., and Glazebrook, J. (2007). “Arabidopsis cytochrome P450 monooxygenase 71A13 catalyzes the conversion of indole-3-acetaldoxime in camalexin synthesis,” The Plant Cell 19(6), 2039-2052. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.107.051383

Nanjundan, J., Manjunatha, C., Radhamani, J., Thakur, A. K., Yadav, R., Kumar, A., Meena, M. L., Tyagi, R. K., Yadava, D. K., and Singh, D. (2020). “Identification of new source of resistance to powdery mildew of Indian mustard and studying its inheritance,” The Plant Pathology Journal 36(2), 111-120. DOI: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.07.2019.0205

Nanjundan, J., Radhamani, J., Manjunatha, C., Yadav, R., Kumar, A., Thakur, A. K., Dinesh, S. K., Meena, M. L., Tyagi, R. K., Singh, D., et al. (2021). “RDV 29 (IC0589658) (IC589658; INGR20041), an Indian Mustard (Brassica juncea) germplasm with resistance to powdery mildew disease,” Indian Journal of Plant Genetic Resources 34(2), 341-342.

Navet, N., and Tian, M. (2020). “Efficient targeted mutagenesis in allotetraploid sweet basil by CRISPR/Cas9,” Plant Direct 4(6), article e00233. DOI: 10.1002/pld3.233

Negrean, G., and Denchev, C. M. (2000). “New records of Bulgarian parasitic fungi,” Flora Mediterranea 10, 101-108.

Nie, H., Zhao, C., Wu, G., Wu, Y., Chen, Y., and Tang, D. (2012). “SR1, a calmodulin-binding transcription factor, modulates plant defense and ethylene-induced senescence by directly regulating NDR1 and EIN3,” Plant physiology 158(4), 1847-1859. DOI: 10.1104/pp.111.192310

Niknam, G. R., and Guya, M. (1996). “Identification of Erysiphe species causing powdery mildew on plant flora in Tabriz University campus,” Agricultural Science Scientific Journal of College of Agriculture Tabriz University (Iran Islamic Republic) 6(3), 1-10.

Niks, R. E., and Marcel, T. C. (2009). “Nonhost and basal resistance: How to explain specificity?,” New Phytologist 182(4), 817-828. DOI: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.02849.x

Nimchuk, Z., Eulgem, T., Holt Iii, B. F., and Dangl, J. L. (2003). “Recognition and response in the plant immune system,” Annual Review of Genetics 37(1), 579-609. DOI: 10.1146/annurev.genet.37.110801.142628

Nishimura, M. T., and Dangl, J. L. (2010). “Arabidopsis and the plant immune system,” The Plant Journal 61(6), 1053-1066. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04131.x

Pandey, S. P., Roccaro, M., Schön, M., Logemann, E., and Somssich, I. E. (2010). “Transcriptional reprogramming regulated by WRKY18 and WRKY40 facilitates powdery mildew infection of Arabidopsis,” The Plant Journal 64(6), 912-923. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2010.04387.x

Pane, C., Manganiello, G., Nicastro, N., Cardi, T., and Carotenuto, F. (2021). “Powdery mildew caused by Erysiphe cruciferarum on wild rocket (Diplotaxis tenuifolia): Hyperspectral imaging and machine learning modeling for non-destructive disease detection,” Agriculture 11(4), article 337. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture11040337

Panstruga, R. (2005). “Serpentine plant MLO proteins as entry portals for powdery mildew fungi,” Biochemical Society Transactions 33(2), 389-392. DOI: 10.1042/BST0330389

Park, J. E., Park, J. Y., Kim, Y. S., Staswick, P. E., Jeon, J., Yun, J., Kim, S. Y., Kim, J., Lee, Y. H., and Park, C. M. (2007). “GH3-mediated auxin homeostasis links growth regulation with stress adaptation response in Arabidopsis,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 282(13), 10036-10046. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M610524200

Pastircakova, K., and Pastircak, M. (2013). “A powdery mildew (Pseudoidium sp.) found on Chelidonium majus in the Czech Republic and Slovakia,” Czech Mycology 65(1), 125-132. DOI: 10.33585/cmy.65110

Penaud, A. (1998). “Oidium du colza, la protection du colza est maintenant possible [Powdery mildew of rapeseed, protection of rapeseed is now possible],” Oleoscope 50, 36-38.

Prado, M., da Silva, A. V., Campos, G. R., Borges, K. L. R., Yassue, R. M., Husein, G., Akens, F. F., Sposito, M. B., Amorim, L., Behrouzi, P., and Bustos-Korts, D. (2024). “Complementary approaches to dissect late leaf rust resistance in an interspecific raspberry population,” G3: Genes, Genomes, Genetics 14(10), article 202. DOI: 10.1093/g3journal/jkae202

Pramanik, D., Shelake, R. M., Park, J., Kim, M. J., Hwang, I., Park, Y., and Kim, J. Y. (2021). “CRISPR/Cas9-mediated generation of pathogen-resistant tomato against tomato yellow leaf curl virus and powdery mildew,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 22(4), article 1878. DOI: 10.3390/ijms22041878

Qin, B., Wang, M., He, H. X., Xiao, H. X., Zhang, Y., and Wang, L. F. (2019). “Identification and characterization of a potential candidate Mlo gene conferring susceptibility to powdery mildew in rubber tree,” Phytopathology 109(7), 1236-1245. DOI: 10.1094/PHYTO-05-18-0171-R

Qiu, J. L., Fiil, B. K., Petersen, K., Nielsen, H. B., Botanga, C. J., Thorgrimsen, S., Palma, K., Suarez‐Rodriguez, M, C., Sandbech‐Clausen, S., Lichota, J., et al. (2008). “Arabidopsis MAP kinase 4 regulates gene expression through transcription factor release in the nucleus,” EMBO Journal 27(16), 2214-2221. DOI: 10.1038/emboj.2008.147

Radisek, S., Jakse, J., Zhao, T. T., Cho, S. E., and Shin, H. D. (2018). “First report of powdery mildew of Capsella bursa-pastoris caused by Golovinomyces orontii in Slovenia” Journal of Plant Pathology 100, 359-359. DOI: 10.1007/s42161-018-0071-5

Ramonell, K., Berrocal-Lobo, M., Koh, S., Wan, J., Edwards, H., Stacey, G., and Somerville, S. (2005). “Loss-of-function mutations in chitin responsive genes show increased susceptibility to the powdery mildew pathogen Erysiphe cichoracearum,” Plant Physiology 138(2), 1027-1036. DOI: 10.1104/pp.105.060947

Rancour, D. M., Park, S., Knight, S. D., and Bednarek, S. Y. (2004). “Plant UBX domain-containing protein 1, PUX1, regulates the oligomeric structure and activity of Arabidopsis CDC48,” Journal of Biological Chemistry 279(52), 54264-54274. DOI: 10.1074/jbc.M405498200

Reuber, T. L., and Ausubel, F. M. (1996). “Isolation of Arabidopsis genes that differentiate between resistance responses mediated by the RPS2 and RPM1 disease resistance genes,” The Plant Cell 8(2), 241-249. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.8.2.241

Runno-Paurson, E., Laaniste, P., Eremeev, V., Edesi, L., Metspalu, L., Kännaste, A., and Niinemets, U. (2021). “Powdery mildew (Erysiphe cruciferarum) evaluation on oilseed rape and alternative cruciferous oilseed crops in the northern Baltic region in unusually warm growing seasons,” Acta Agriculturae Scandinavica, Section B—Soil & Plant Science 71(6), 443-452. DOI: 10.1080/09064710.2021.1914714

Russell, G. E. (2013). Plant Breeding for Pest and Disease Resistance: Studies in the Agricultural and Food Sciences, Butterworth-Heinemann, UK.

Saharan, G. S., and Sheoran, B. S. (1985). “Assessment of yield losses of mustard due to powdery mildew disease,” Cruciferae Newslt 10, 112-113.

Saharan, G. S., Mehta, N. K., and Meena, P. D. (2019). Powdery Mildew Disease of Crucifers: Biology, Ecology and Disease Management, Springer, Singapore. DOI: 10.1007/978-981-13-9853-7

Saharan, G. S., Naresh Mehta, N. M., and Sangwan, M. S. (2005). Development of Disease Resistance in Rapeseed-Mustard, Indus Publishing Company, New Delhi, India.

Schmidt, A., and Scholler, M. (2011). “Studies in Erysiphales anamorphs (4): Species on Hydrangeaceae and Papaveraceae,” Mycotaxon 115(1), 287-301. DOI: 10.5248/115.287

Schuhegger, R., Nafisi, M., Mansourova, M., Petersen, B. L., Olsen, C. E., Svatoš, A., Halkier, B. A., and Glawischnig, E. (2007a). “CYP71B15 (PAD3) catalyzes the final step in camalexin biosynthesis-correction,” Plant Physiology 145(4), 1086-1086. DOI: 10.1104/pp.104.900240

Schuhegger, R., Rauhut, T., and Glawischnig, E. (2007). “Regulatory variability of camalexin biosynthesis,” Journal of Plant Physiology 164(5), 636-644. DOI: 10.1016/j.jplph.2006.04.012

Schweizer, P., Kmecl, A., Carpita, N., and Dudler, R. (2000). “A soluble carbohydrate elicitor from Blumeria graminis f. sp. tritici is recognized by a broad range of cereals,” Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 56(4), 157-167. DOI: 10.1006/pmpp.2000.0259

Sharma, A. K. (1979). “Powdery mildew diseases of some crucifers from Jammu and Kashmir State,” Indian Journal of Mycology and Plant Pathology 9(1), 29-32.

Sharma, N. D., and Khare, C. P. (1992). “Morphology of anamorphs of some powdery mildew fungi of Jabalpur division,” Acta Botanica Indica 20, article 269.

Shattuck, V. I., and Parry, R. (1990). “The occurrence of powdery mildew on rutabagas in southern Ontario,” Canadian Plant Disease Survey 70(1), 15-16.

Shen, Q. H., Saijo, Y., Mauch, S., Biskup, C., Bieri, S., Keller, B., Seki, H., Ülker, B., Somssich, I. E., and Schulze-Lefert, P. (2007). “Nuclear activity of MLA immune receptors links isolate-specific and basal disease-resistance responses,” Science 315(5815), 1098-1103. DOI: 10.1126/science.1136372

Sherf, A. F. (1986). Vegetable Diseases and Their Control, Wiley, New York, NY, USA.

Shi, Y. Q., Sun, M. D., Chen, F., Cheng, H. T., Hu, X. Z., Fu, L., Hu, Q., Mei, D. S., and Li, C. (2022). “Genome editing of BnMLO6 gene by CRISPR/Cas9 for the improvement of disease resistance in Brassica napus L,” Acta Agronomica Sinica 48(4), 801-811. DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1006.2022.14077

Shin, H. D., and La, Y. J. (1992). “Addition to the new records of host plants of powdery mildews in Korea,” Korean Journal of Plant Pathology (Korea Republic) 8(1), 57-60.

Singh, K., Kumar, S., and Kaur, P. (2016). “Detection of powdery mildew disease of beans in India: A review,” Oriental Journal of Computer Science and Technology 9(3), 226-234. DOI: 10.13005/ojcst/09.03.08

Singh, R. B., and Singh, R. N. (2003). “Management of powdery mildew of mustard,” Indian Phytopathology 56(2), 147-150.

Singh, R., Singh, D., Salisbury, P., and Barbetti, M. J. (2010). “Field evaluation of indigenous and exotic Brassica juncea genotypes against Alternaria blight, white rust, downy mildew and powdery mildew diseases in India,” Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences 80(2), 155-159.

Sree, M. R., Singh, S. K., Prakash, J., Kumar, C., Kumar, A., Mishra, G. P., Sevanthi, A. M., Sreekanth, H. S., and Amala, E. (2024). “Powdery mildew pathogen [Erysiphe necator (Schw.) Burrill.] induced physiological and biochemical alterations in leaf tissue of grapevines (Vitis spp.),” Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 133, article 102386. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmpp.2024.102386

Stein, M., Dittgen, J., Sánchez-Rodríguez, C., Hou, B. H., Molina, A., Schulze-Lefert, P., Lipka, V., and Somerville, S. (2006). “Arabidopsis PEN3/PDR8, an ATP binding cassette transporter, contributes to nonhost resistance to inappropriate pathogens that enter by direct penetration,” The Plant Cell 18(3), 731-746. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.105.038372

Suhag, L. S., and Duhan, J. C. (1985). “Severity of powdery mildew disease on radish seed crop in Haryana,” Indian Phytopathology 38(3), 549-551.

Thordal-Christensen, H. (2003). “Fresh insights into processes of nonhost resistance,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology 6(4), 351-357. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(03)00063-3

Tian, M., Yu, R., Yang, W., Guo, S., Liu, S., Du, H., Liang, J., and Zhang, X. (2024). “Effect of powdery mildew on the photosynthetic parameters and leaf microstructure of melon,” Agriculture 14(6), article 886. DOI: 10.3390/agriculture14060886

Tirnaz, S., Bayer, P. E., Inturrisi, F., Zhang, F., Yang, H., Dolatabadian, A., Neik, T. X., Severn-Ellis, A., Patel, D. A., Ibrahim, M. I., et al. (2020). “Resistance gene analogs in the Brassicaceae: Identification, characterization, distribution, and evolution,” Plant Physiology 184(2), 909-922. DOI: 10.1104/pp.20.00835

Tonguc, M., and Griffiths, P. D. (2004). “Transfer of powdery mildew resistance from Brassica carinata to Brassica oleracea through embryo rescue,” Plant Breeding 123(6), 587-589. DOI: 10.1111/j.1439-0523.2004.00987.x

Uloth, M. B., You, M. P., and Barbetti, M. J. (2016). “Cultivar resistance offers the first opportunity for effective management of the emerging powdery mildew (Erysiphe cruciferarum) threat to oilseed brassicas in Australia,” Crop and Pasture Science 67(11), 1179-1187. DOI: 10.1071/CP16182

Vellios, E., Karkanis, A., and Bilalis, D. (2017). “Powdery mildew (Erysiphe cruciferarum) infection on camelina (Camelina sativa) under Mediterranean conditions and the role of wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) as alternative host of this pathogen,” Emirates Journal of Food and Agriculture 29, 639-642. DOI: 10.9755/ejfa.2017-02-493

Vogel, J., and Somerville, S. (2000). “Isolation and characterization of powdery mildew-resistant Arabidopsis mutants,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 97(4), 1897-1902. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.030531997

Wan, J., Zhang, X. C., and Stacey, G. (2008). “Chitin signaling and plant disease resistance,” Plant Signaling & Behavior 3(10), 831-833. DOI: 10.4161/psb.3.10.5916

Weis, C., Hildebrandt, U., Hoffmann, T., Hemetsberger, C., Pfeilmeier, S., König, C., Schwab, W., Eichmann, R., and Huckelhoven, R. (2014). “CYP83A1 is required for metabolic compatibility of Arabidopsis with the adapted powdery mildew fungus Erysiphe cruciferarum,” New Phytologist 202(4), 1310-1319. DOI: 10.1111/nph.12759

Weis, C., Pfeilmeier, S., Glawischnig, E., Isono, E., Pachl, F., Hahne, H., Kuster, B., Eichmann, R., and Hückelhoven, R. (2013). “Co‐immunoprecipitation‐based identification of putative BAX INHIBITOR‐1‐interacting proteins involved in cell death regulation and plant–powdery mildew interactions,” Molecular Plant Pathology 14(8), 791-802. DOI: 10.1111/mpp.12050

White, F. F., Yang, B., and Johnson, L. B. (2000). “Prospects for understanding avirulence gene function,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology 3(4), 291-298. DOI: 10.1016/S1369-5266(00)00082-0

Wiermer, M., Feys, B. J., and Parker, J. E. (2005). “Plant immunity: The EDS1 regulatory node,” Current Opinion in Plant Biology 8(4), 383-389. DOI: 10.1016/j.pbi.2005.05.010

Wilson, I. W., Schiff, C. L., Hughes, D. E., and Somerville, S. C. (2001). “Quantitative trait loci analysis of powdery mildew disease resistance in the Arabidopsis thaliana accession Kashmir-1,” Genetics 158(3), 1301-1309. DOI: 10.1093/genetics/158.3.1301

Wu, G., Liu, S., Zhao, Y., Wang, W., Kong, Z., and Tang, D. (2015). “Enhanced disease resistance4 associates with CLATHRIN HEAVY CHAIN2 and modulates plant immunity by regulating relocation of EDR1 in Arabidopsis,” The Plant Cell 27(3), 857-873. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.114.134668

Xiao, C. L., Chandler, C. K., Price, J. F., Duval, J. R., Mertely, J. C., and Legard, D. E. (2001). “Comparison of epidemics of Botrytis fruit rot and powdery mildew of strawberry in large plastic tunnel and field production systems,” Plant Disease 85(8), 901-909. DOI: 10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.8.901

Xiao, S., Calis, O., Patrick, E., Zhang, G., Charoenwattana, P., Muskett, P., Parker, J. E. and Turner, J. G. (2005). “The atypical resistance gene, RPW8, recruits components of basal defence for powdery mildew resistance in Arabidopsis,” The Plant Journal 42(1), 95-110. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-313X.2005.02356.x

Xiao, S., Charoenwattana, P., Holcombe, L., and Turner, J. G. (2003). “The Arabidopsis genes RPW8. 1 and RPW8. 2 confer induced resistance to powdery mildew diseases in tobacco,” Molecular Plant-Microbe Interactions 16(4), 289-294. DOI: 10.1094/MPMI.2003.16.4.289

Xiao, S., Ellwood, S., Findlay, K., Oliver, R. P., and Turner, J. G. (1997). “Characterization of three loci controlling resistance of Arabidopsis thaliana accession Ms‐0 to two powdery mildew diseases,” The Plant Journal 12(4), 757-768. DOI: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.1997.12040757.x

Yang, X. M., Zhao, J. H., Xiong, X. Y., Hu, Z. W., Sun, J. F., Su, H., Liu, Y. J., Xiang, L., Zhu, Y., Li, J. L., et al. (2024). “Broad‐spectrum resistance gene RPW8. 1 balances immunity and growth via feedback regulation of WRKYs,” Plant Biotechnology Journal 22(1), 116-130. DOI: 10.1111/pbi.14172

Zhang, M., Qiong G., Xing S., Yaohua C., Haoxue W., Zhen H., Aixia X., Jungang D., and Chengyu Y. (2022). “Microscopic and transcriptomic comparison of powdery mildew resistance in the progenies of Brassica carinata× B. napus,” International Journal of Molecular Sciences 23(17), 9961.DOI: 10.3390/ijms23179961

Zhang, Y., Goritschnig, S., Dong, X., and Li, X. (2003). “A gain-of-function mutation in a plant disease resistance gene leads to constitutive activation of downstream signal transduction pathways in suppressor of npr1-1, constitutive 1,” The Plant Cell 15(11), 2636-2646. DOI: 10.1105/tpc.015842

Zhong, X., Xi, L., Lian, Q., Luo, X., Wu, Z., Seng, S., Yuan, X., and Yi, M. (2015). “The NPR1 homolog GhNPR1 plays an important role in the defense response of Gladiolus hybridus,” Plant Cell Reports 34, 1063-1074. DOI: 10.1007/s00299-015-1765-1

Article submitted: November 9, 2024; Peer review completed: March 14, 2025; Revised version received: May 14, 2025; Accepted: June 18, 2025; Published: November 3, 2025. DOI: 10.15376/biores.20.4.Chanda