Distribution of bacterial endophytes in peanut seeds obtained from axenic and control plant material under field conditions
- 584 Downloads
Background and Aims
The role and linkage of endophytic bacteria to resistance of peanut seeds to biotic stress is poorly understood. The aims of the present study were to survey the experimental (axenic) and control (conventional) peanut plants for the predominant endophytic bacteria, and to characterize isolates with activity against selected A. flavus strains.
Young axenic plants were grown from presumably bacteria-free embryos in the lab, and then they were grown in a field. Endophytic bacterial species were identified by the analysis of DNA sequences of their 16S-ribosomal RNA gene. DNA extracted from soil was also analyzed for predominant bacteria.
Mature seeds from the experimental and control plants contained several species of nonpathogenic endophytic bacteria. Among the eight bacterial species isolated from seeds, and DNA sequences detected in soil, Bacillus thuringiensis was dominant. All B. amyloliquefaciens isolates, the second abundant species in seeds demonstrated activity against A. flavus. This effect was not observed with any other bacterial isolates. There was no significant difference in number and relative occurrence of the two major bacterial species between the experimental and conventionally grown control seeds.
Endophytic bacterial colonization derives from local soil and not from the seed source, and the peanut plant accommodates only selected species of bacteria from diverse soil populations. Some bacterial isolates showed antibiosis against A. flavus.
KeywordsArachis hypogaea Bacillus thuringiensis Bacillus amyloliquefaciens Endophytic bacteria Aspergillus flavus
This work was supported by USDA-ARS project number 6604-42000-008-00D. We thank B. Horn for providing the strains Aspergillus flavus NRRL 3357 and NRRL 21882. We appreciate M. Schweikert’s valuable help in the isolation of bacteria from peanut seeds. Mention of trade names or commercial products in this article is solely for the purpose of providing specific information and does not imply recommendation or endorsement by the US Department of Agriculture. The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
- Bhanumathi P, Ganesan M, Jayabalan N (2005) A simple and improved protocol for direct and indirect somatic embryogenesis of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). J Agric Technol 1:327–344Google Scholar
- Blankenship PD, Cole RJ, Sanders TH, Hill RA (1983) Environmental control plot facility with manipulable soil temperature. Oleagineux 38:615–620Google Scholar
- Dong ZM, Canny MJ, Mccully ME, Roboredo MR, Cabadilla CF, Ortega E, Rodes R (1994) A Nitrogen-fixing endophyte of sugarcane stems (a new role for the apoplast). Plant Physiol 105:1139–1147Google Scholar
- Eaton DL, Groopman JD (1994) The toxicology of aflatoxins: human health, veterinary, and agricultural significance. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Frommel MI, Nowak J, Lazarovits G (1993) Treatment of potato tubers with a growth-promoting Pseudomonas sp.: plant-growth responses and bacterium distribution in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil 150:51–60Google Scholar
- Grimault V, Prior P (1994) Invasiveness of Pseudomonas solanacearum in tomato, eggplant and pepper: a comparative study. Eur J Plant Pathol 100:259–267Google Scholar
- Hale MG (1969) Loss of organic compounds from roots I. Cultural conditions for axenic growth of peanut, Arachis hypogaea, L. Plant Soil 31:463–472Google Scholar
- Kemerait B, Brenneman T, Culbreth A (2012) Peanut disease management update. 2012 Peanut Production Update. Beasley JP, ed. Bull. CSS-12-0130. Georgia Agric. Exp. Sta., Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
- Kloepper JW, Ryu C-M (2006) Bacterial endophytes as elicitors of induced systemic resistance. In: Shultz B, Boyle C, Sieber TN (eds) Soil biology. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg, pp 33–52Google Scholar
- Kobayashi DY, Palumbo JD (2000) Bacterial endophytes and their effects on plants and uses in agriculture. In: White JF, Bacon CW (eds) Microbial endophytes. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, pp 199–233Google Scholar
- Li QW, Wang ZH, Yan PS, Wu HQ (2011) Phylogenetic analysis of bacterial strains from peanut and their antifungal activities. J Converg Inform Technol 6:293–299Google Scholar
- Nowak J, Asiedu SK, Lazarovits G, Pillay V, Stewart A, Smith C, Liu Z (1995) Enhancement of in vitro growth and transplant stress tolerance of potato and vegetable plantlets co-cultured with a plant growth promoting pseudomonad bacterium. In: Chagvardieff P, Carre F (eds) Ecophysiology and photosynthetic in vitro cultures. Comisariat a l’energie atomique, France, pp 173–179Google Scholar
- Podile AR, Laxmi VDV, Manjula K, Sailaja PR (1995) Bacillus subtilis AF1 as biocontrol PGPR: towards understanding survival and mechanism of action. In: Adholeya S, Sing S (eds) Mycorrhizae: biofertilizers for the future. TERI, New Delhi, pp 506–509Google Scholar
- Rasko DA, Ravel J, Ökstad OA, Helgason E, Cer RZ, Jiang L, Shores KA, Fouts DE, Tourasse NJ, Angiuoli SV, Kolonay J, Nelson WC, Kolstö AB, Fraser CM, Read TD (2004) The genome sequence of Bacillus cereus ATCC 10987 reveals metabolic adaptations and a large plasmid related to Bacillus anthracis pXO1. Nucl Acids Res 32:977–988PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Saharan BS, Nehra V (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: a critical review. Life Sci Med Res (LMSR) 21:1–30Google Scholar
- Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning. A laboratory manual, 2nd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring HarborGoogle Scholar
- Soil Survey Staff (1999) Soil taxonomy: a basic system of soil classification for making and interpreting soil surveys, 2nd edn. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources and Conservation Service, Washington, D. CGoogle Scholar
- Tonelli ML, Taurian T, Ibanez F, Angelini J, Fabra A (2010) Selection and in vitro characterization of biocontrol agents with potential to protect peanut plants against fungal pathogens. J Plant Pathol 92:73–82Google Scholar
- Tsiantos J, Stevens WA (1986) The population dynamics of Corynebacterium michiganense pv. michiganense and other selected bacteria in tomato leaves. Phytoathol Mediterr 25:160–162Google Scholar
- United States Department of Agriculture, Foreign Agricultural Service (2013) Table 13 peanut area, yield, and production. http://www.fas.usda.gov/psdonline/psdreport.aspx?hidReportRetrievalName=BVS&hidReportRetrievalID=918&hidReportRetrievalTemplateID=1. Accessed 14 February 2013
- Ziedan EHE (2006) Manipulating endophytic bacteria for biological control of soil born diseases of peanut. J Appl Sci Res 2:497–502Google Scholar