While the mechanisms underlying quantitative resistance of plants to pathogens are still not fully elucidated, the Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs)-triggered response model suggests that such resistance depends on a dynamic interplay between the plant and the pathogen. In this model, the pathogens themselves or elicitors they produce would induce general defense pathways, which in turn limit pathogen growth and host colonisation. It therefore suggests that quantitative resistance is directly linked to a common set of general host defense mechanisms, but experimental evidence is still inconclusive. We tested the PAMP-triggered model using two pathogens (Pectobacterium atrosepticum and Phytophthora infestans) differing by their infectious processes and five potato cultivars spanning a range of resistance levels to each pathogen. Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL) activity, used as a defense marker, and accumulation of phenolics were measured in tuber slices challenged with lipopolysaccharides from P. atrosepticum or a concentrated culture filtrate from P. infestans. PAL activity increased following treatment with the filtrate but not with lipopolysaccharides, and varied among cultivars. It was positively related to tuber resistance to P. atrosepticum, but negatively related to tuber resistance to P. infestans. It was also positively related to the accumulation of total phenolics. Chlorogenic acid, the main phenolic accumulated, inhibited growth of both pathogens in vitro, showing that PAL induction caused active defense against each of them. Tuber slices in which PAL activity had been induced before inoculation showed increased resistance to P. atrosepticum, but not to P. infestans. Our results show that inducing a general defense mechanism does not necessarily result in quantitative resistance. As such, they invalidate the hypothesis that the PAMP-triggered model alone can explain quantitative resistance. We thus designed a more complex model integrating physiological host response and a key pathogen life history trait, pathogen growth, to explain the differences between the two pathosystems.

Host mixtures are a promising method for agroecological plant disease control. Plant immunity is key to the success of host mixtures against polymorphic pathogen populations. This immunity results from priming-induced cross-protection, whereby plants able to resist infection by specific pathogen genotypes become more resistant to other pathogen genotypes. Strikingly, this phenomenon was absent from mathematical models aiming at designing host mixtures. We developed a model to specifically explore how priming affects the coexistence of two pathogen genotypes in host mixtures composed of two host genotypes and how it affects disease prevalence. The main effect of priming is to reduce the coexistence region in the parameter space (due to the cross-protection) and to generate a singular mixture of resistant and susceptible hosts corresponding to the maximal reduction disease prevalence (in absence of priming, a resistant pure stand is optimal). The epidemiological advantage of host mixtures over a resistant pure stand thus appears as a direct consequence of immune priming. We also showed that there is indirect cross-protection between host genotypes in a mixture. Moreover, the optimal mix prevents the emergence of a resistance-breaking pathogen genotype. Our results highlight the importance of considering immune priming to design optimal and sustainable host mixtures.

The induction of general plant defense responses following the perception of external elicitors is now regarded as the first level of the plant immune response. Depending on the involvement or not of these molecules in pathogenicity, this induction of defense is called either Pathogen-Associated Molecular Pattern (PAMP) Triggered Immunity or Pattern Triggered Immunity—both abbreviated to PTI. Because PTI is assumed to be a widespread and stable form of resistance to infection, understanding the mechanisms driving it becomes a major goal for the sustainable management of plant-pathogen interactions. However, the induction of PTI is complex. Our hypotheses are that (i) the recognition by the plant of PAMPs vs non-PAMP elicitors leads to specific defense profiles and (ii) the responses specifically induced by PAMPs target critical life history traits of the pathogen that produced them. We thus analyzed, using a metabolomic approach coupled with transcriptomic and hormonal analyses, the defense profiles induced in potato foliage treated with either a Concentrated Culture Filtrate (CCF) from Phytophthora infestans or two non-PAMP preparations, β-aminobutyric acid (BABA) and an Ulva spp. Extract, used separately. Each elicitor induced specific defense profiles. CCF up-regulated sesquiterpenes but down-regulated sterols and phenols, notably α-chaconine, caffeoyl quinic acid and rutin, which decreased spore production of P. infestans in vitro. CCF thus induces both defense and counter-defense responses. By contrast, the Ulva extract triggered the synthesis of a large-spectrum of antimicrobial compounds through the phenylpropanoid/flavonoid pathways, while BABA targeted the primary metabolism. Hence, PTI can be regarded as a heterogeneous set of general and pathogen-specific responses triggered by the molecular signatures of each elicitor, rather than as a uniform, non-specific and broad-spectrum set of general defense reactions.

The induction of plant immunity by Pathogen Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs) constitutes a powerful strategy for crop protection. PAMPs indeed induce general defense responses in plants and thus increase plant resistance to pathogens. Phytophthora infestans culture filtrates (CCFs) are known to induce defense responses and decrease the severity of soft rot due to Pectobacterium atrosepticum in potato tubers. The aim of this study was to identify and characterize the active compounds from P. infestans filtrate. The filtrate was fractionated by gel filtration, and the protection effects against P. atrosepticum and the ability to induce PAL activity were tested for each fraction. The fraction active in protection (F1) also induced PAL activity, as did the whole filtrate. Three elicitins (INF1, INF4 and INF5) were identified in F1b, subfraction of F1, by MALDI-TOF-MS and MS/MS analyses. However, deproteinized F1b still showed biological activity against the bacterium, revealing the presence of an additional active compound. GC-MS analyses of the deproteinized fraction highlighted the presence of a galactan-based complex polysaccharide. These experiments demonstrate that the biological activity of the CCF against P. atrosepticum results from a combined action of three elicitins and a complex polysaccharide, probably through the activation of general defense responses.