rosea self interaction that may suggest a role for Hyd1, Hyd2 and Hyd3 in intraspecific signalling or hyphal fusion. Hydrophobins that are known to be involved in interactions with plant leaves and roots are usually highly expressed during these conditions [8, 9, 28]. Therefore, the low expression of the 3 C. rosea hydrophobin genes during barley root colonization indicates that the corresponding proteins may not be necessary

for root adhesion and colonization. Deletion of hydrophobin genes from different fungal species often results in variable and sometimes contradicting phenotypes. This is a reflection of the https://www.selleckchem.com/products/arn-509.html birth-and-death type of evolution of the hydrophobin gene family [29], which results in functionally diverse proteins with many species specific members. This is evident for Hyd1 and Hyd3 in C. rosea as gene deletions results in increased growth rate and sporulation, which is in contrast to the reduced sporulation in T. reesei, M. oryzae and M. brunneum due to deletion of the hydrophobin

genes HFB2[26], MPG1 and MHP1[8, 9] and hyd1, hyd2 and hyd3[11], respectively. The Foretinib research buy situation is even more complicated as deletion of HCf-1 and HCf-2 in Cladosporium fulvum[34], cpph1 in Claviceps purpurea[38] and hfb1 in T. reesei[26] results in no differences in sporulation in comparison with the WT strain. Deletion of Hyd1 or Hyd3 does not influence mycelial hydrophobicity in C. rosea, which is consistent with previous reports in C. purpurea, M. brunneum, F. verticilloides and B. cinerea[11–13, 38]. However, it seems that Hyd1 and Hyd3 are jointly required for conidial hydrophobicity and dispersal, as the conidia from the double deletion mutant ΔHyd1ΔHyd3 clump together in solution and have lower Amobarbital hydrophobicity index than the WT. Similar phenotypes are repeatedly reported from many different

species [8, 9, 11, 12, 34, 39]. Furthermore, deletion of Hyd1 and Hyd3 does not influence the expression levels of Hyd2, which suggests that Hyd2 is subject to different regulatory signals than Hyd1 and Hyd3. Failure to delete Hyd2 despite several trials may suggest an essential function of the corresponding protein. Hyd1 and Hyd3 do not appear to be involved in protection of the C. rosea mycelium during abiotic stress conditions. In contrast, higher conidial germination rates during abiotic stress conditions in Hyd1 and Hyd3 mutants suggests that these hydrophobins inhibit conidial germination in environments not suitable for mycelial growth. Similar results are shown previously in M. oryzae and the entomopathogenic fungus B. bassiana against thermal stress [9, 10]. Hence, under unfavourable conditions hydrophobins may act as a sensor for the conidial germination signalling selleck kinase inhibitor pathway and consequently protect the conidia by limiting its germination until favourable conditions are prevail [10].