Investigations on the host-parasite interface of a mycoparasite system /

The cell wall composition of Choanephora cucur - bitarum and the host-parasite interface, after infection with Piptocephalis virginiana , were examined in detail. The cell walls of C_. cucurbitarum were determined to be composed of chitin (17%), chitosan (28.4%), neutral sugars (7.2%),uronic acid (2.4%), proteins (8.2%) and lipids (13.8%). The structure of hyphal walls investigated by electron microscopy of shadowed replicas before and after alkali-acid hydrolysis, showed two distinct regions: microfibrillar and amorphous. The microfibrils which were composed of mainly chitin, were organized into two distinct layers: an outer, thicker layer of randomly orientated microfibrils and an inner, thin layer of parallel microfibrils.Electronmicrographs of the host-parasite interface of C_. cucurbitarum and the mycoparasite , P_. virginiana , 30 h following inoculation, showed that the sheath zone has a similar electron density to that of the host cell wall. The sheath was not present around the young (18 h old) haustorium. High-resolution autoradiographs of infected host hyphae showed that radioactive N-acetyl-D-glucosamine , a precursor of chitin, was incorporated preferentially in the host cell wall and sheath zone. Cell fractionation of label fed hyphae showed that 84% of the label was present in the cell wall and specifically in the chitin portion of the wall. The antifungal antibiotic, Polyoxin D, a specific inhibitor of the enzyme, chitin synthetase, suppressed the incorporation of the label in the cell wall and sheath zone and resulted in a decrease in electron density of the developing sheath. The significance of these results is discussed in the light of host resistance.

Probing cell surfaces of host and nonhost species of a mycoparasite, using FITC-labeled lectins

Cell surfaces of susceptible host species (Mortierella pusllla and Cboanepilora cucurbitarum ), resistant host (Pilascolomyces articulosus ), nonhost (Mortierella candelabrum ) and the mycoparasite (Piptocepilalis virginiana) were examined for sugar distribution patterns using light and fluorescent microscopy techniques. The susceptible host, resistant host and the mycoparasite species exhibited a similar sugar distribution profile; they all showed N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose on their cell wall surfaces. The nonhost cell wall surface showed a positive binding reaction to FITClectins specific for N-acetyl glucosamine and also for OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. Treatment of these fungi with mild concentrations of proteinases (both commercial as well as the mycoparasiteproteinase) resulted in the revelation of additional sugars on the fungal cell walls. The susceptible host treated with proteinase expressed higher levels of N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. The susceptible host also showed the presence of OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose. The proteinasetreated susceptible host cell walls also showed an increase in the levels of attachment with the mycoparasite. Treatment of the resistant host with proteinases revealed OI.-fucose in addition to N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Treatment of the nonhost cell wall with proteinase resulted in the exposure of low levels of D-glucose, in addition to sugars found on the untreated nonhost cell wall surface. The mycoparasite treated with proteinase revealed OI.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose on its cell surface in addition to the sugars N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose. Protoplasts were isolated from hosts and nonhost fungi and their surfaces were examined for sugar distribution patterns. The susceptible host and nonhost protoplast membranes showed all the sugars (N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose, (It.-fucose, N-acetyl galactosamine and galactose) tested for. The resistant host protoplast membrane however, had only N-acetyl glucosamine and D-glucose exposed. This sugar distribution profile resembles that exhibited by the untreated resistant host cell wall, as well as that shown by the untreated mycoparasite cell surface. Only susceptible host protoplasts were successful in attaching to the mycoparasite surface. Resistant host protoplasts did not show any interaction with the i mycoparasite cell surface. Both susceptible as well as resistant host protoplasts were incapable of attaching to agarose beads surface-coated with specific carbohydrates. The mycoparasite however, did attach to agarose beads surface-coated with either N-acetyl glucosamine, D-glucose/Dmannose or o:,- methyl-D-mannose. The relevance of the cell wall and the protoplast membrane in the light of the present results, in reacting appropriately to bring about either a susceptible, a resistant or a nonhost response has been discussed.