Tissue specificity and differential effects on in vitro plant growth of single bacterial endophytes isolated from the roots, leaves and rhizospheric soil of Echinacea purpurea.
Echinacea purpurea
Endophyte
Growth promotion
In vitro model
Plant-biotic interactions
Tissue specificity
Journal
BMC plant biology
ISSN: 1471-2229
Titre abrégé: BMC Plant Biol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967807
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
28 Jun 2019
28 Jun 2019
Historique:
received:
02
12
2018
accepted:
18
06
2019
entrez:
30
6
2019
pubmed:
30
6
2019
medline:
3
8
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Echinacea-endophyte interaction might affect plant secondary metabolites content and influence bacterial colonization specificity and plant growth, but the underlying mechanisms need deepening. An in vitro model, in which E. purpurea axenic plants as host species and E. angustifolia and Nicotiana tabacum as non-host species inoculated with single endophytes isolated from stem/leaf, root and rhizospheric soil, were used to investigate bacterial colonization. Colonization analysis showed that bacteria tended to reach tissues from which they were originally isolated (tissue-specificity) in host plants but not in non-host ones (species-specificity). Primary root elongation inhibition as well as the promotion of the growth of E. purpurea and E. angustifolia plants were observed and related to endophyte-produced indole-3-Acetic Acid. Bacteria-secreted substances affected plant physiology probably interacting with plant regulators. Plant metabolites played an important role in controlling the endophyte growth. The proposed in vitro infection model could be, generally used to identify novel bioactive compounds and/or to select specific endophytes contributing to the host metabolism properties.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Echinacea-endophyte interaction might affect plant secondary metabolites content and influence bacterial colonization specificity and plant growth, but the underlying mechanisms need deepening. An in vitro model, in which E. purpurea axenic plants as host species and E. angustifolia and Nicotiana tabacum as non-host species inoculated with single endophytes isolated from stem/leaf, root and rhizospheric soil, were used to investigate bacterial colonization.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Colonization analysis showed that bacteria tended to reach tissues from which they were originally isolated (tissue-specificity) in host plants but not in non-host ones (species-specificity). Primary root elongation inhibition as well as the promotion of the growth of E. purpurea and E. angustifolia plants were observed and related to endophyte-produced indole-3-Acetic Acid. Bacteria-secreted substances affected plant physiology probably interacting with plant regulators. Plant metabolites played an important role in controlling the endophyte growth.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The proposed in vitro infection model could be, generally used to identify novel bioactive compounds and/or to select specific endophytes contributing to the host metabolism properties.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31253081
doi: 10.1186/s12870-019-1890-z
pii: 10.1186/s12870-019-1890-z
pmc: PMC6598257
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
284Subventions
Organisme : Regione Toscana
ID : Resolution n. 1224/2016 "Medicine Complementari"
Organisme : Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio di Firenze (IT)
ID : project #2016.0936
Références
Data Brief. 2018 Jan 28;17:234-236
pubmed: 29387737
Int Microbiol. 2014 Sep;17(3):165-74
pubmed: 26419456
Res Microbiol. 2014 Oct;165(8):686-94
pubmed: 25283726
Genome Biol. 2013 Jun 25;14(6):209
pubmed: 23805896
Am J Bot. 2013 Sep;100(9):1738-50
pubmed: 23935113
Environ Microbiol. 2016 Sep;18(8):2357-65
pubmed: 26013664
PLoS One. 2008 Jul 16;3(7):e2702
pubmed: 18628963
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2005 Jun;69(2):217-61
pubmed: 15944455
Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2015 Sep;79(3):293-320
pubmed: 26136581
Plant J. 2018 Feb;93(4):592-613
pubmed: 29266555
Plant Physiol. 1951 Jan;26(1):192-5
pubmed: 16654351
J Proteome Res. 2013 Mar 1;12(3):1142-50
pubmed: 23331092
Environ Microbiol. 2012 Oct;14(10):2775-87
pubmed: 22616609
Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2011 Aug;14(4):435-43
pubmed: 21536480
Res Microbiol. 2017 Apr;168(3):276-282
pubmed: 27884782
Res Microbiol. 2017 Apr;168(3):293-305
pubmed: 27884784
Microorganisms. 2018 Sep 17;6(3):
pubmed: 30227634
PLoS One. 2018 May 7;13(5):e0196996
pubmed: 29734364
J Hazard Mater. 2018 Jan 15;342:85-95
pubmed: 28823920
Plant J. 2018 Feb;93(4):729-746
pubmed: 29265527
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2006 Aug;19(8):827-37
pubmed: 16903349
Plant Mol Biol. 2016 Apr;90(6):549-59
pubmed: 26797793
Sci Rep. 2017 Dec 5;7(1):16924
pubmed: 29208923
FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2018 Aug 1;94(8):
pubmed: 29912319
Plant J. 2018 Feb;93(4):589-591
pubmed: 29405488
Nat Prod Rep. 2018 May 1;35(5):398-409
pubmed: 29722774
New Phytol. 1993 Mar;123(3):421-428
pubmed: 33874122
Trends Microbiol. 2008 Oct;16(10):463-71
pubmed: 18789693
Microb Ecol. 2018 Nov;76(4):1002-1008
pubmed: 29594431
Microsc Res Tech. 2014 Aug;77(8):566-73
pubmed: 24825573
J Pharm Pharmacol. 2005 Aug;57(8):929-54
pubmed: 16102249
Nature. 2006 Nov 16;444(7117):323-9
pubmed: 17108957
Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1992;30:391-418
pubmed: 18647100
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2005 Nov 29;102(48):17454-9
pubmed: 16301542
Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2015 Jan;28(1):10-21
pubmed: 25494355
Microb Ecol. 2018 Feb;75(2):407-418
pubmed: 28840330