Skip to main content
. 2024 May 6;25(9):5049. doi: 10.3390/ijms25095049

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Oscamtapl exhibited increased resistance to M. oryzae. (a) Fifteen-day-old ZH11 and oscamtapl seedlings inoculated with M. oryzae Zhong1 by spraying. Images were taken at 5 dpi. Bar = 1 cm. (b) Fungal biomass of spraying-inoculated leaves was measured to quantify relative fungal growth in ZH11 and oscamtapl. Data are presented as the means ± SEs (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05; one-way ANOVA). (c) Twenty-five-day-old ZH11 and oscamtapl seedlings inoculated with M. oryzae Zhong1 by punch inoculation. Images were taken at 7 dpi. Bar = 1 cm. (d) Fungal biomass of punch-inoculated leaves was measured to quantify relative fungal growth in ZH11 and oscamtapl. Data are presented as the means ± SEs (n = 3). Lowercase letters indicate statistically significant differences (p < 0.05; one-way ANOVA). (e) Oscamtapl did not show an obvious hypersensitive response at the heading stage. Bar = 1 cm.