Advertisement

Functioning of plant-bacterial associations under osmotic stress in vitro

  • Nina V. EvseevaEmail author
  • Oksana V. Tkachenko
  • Alena Yu. Denisova
  • Gennady L. Burygin
  • Dmitry S. Veselov
  • Larisa Yu. Matora
  • Sergei Yu. Shchyogolev
Original Paper
  • 66 Downloads

Abstract

The search for effective plant-growth-promoting strains of rhizospheric bacteria that would ensure the resistance of plant-microbial associations to environmental stressors is essential for the design of environmentally friendly agrobiotechnologies. We investigated the interaction of potato (cv. Nevsky) microplants with the plant-growth-promoting bacteria Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 and Ochrobactrum cytisi IPA7.2 under osmotic stress in vitro. The bacteria improved the physiological and biochemical variables of the microplants, significantly increasing shoot length and root number (1.3-fold, on average). Inoculation also led a more effective recovery of the plants after stress. During repair, inoculation contributed to a decreased leaf content of malonic dialdehyde. With A. brasilense Sp245, the decrease was 1.75-fold; with O. cytisi IPA7.2, it was 1.4-fold. During repair, the shoot length, node number, and root number of the inoculated plants were greater than the control values by an average of 1.3-fold with A. brasilense Sp245 and by an average of 1.6-fold with O. cytisi IPA7.2. O. cytisi IPA7.2, previously isolated from the potato rhizosphere, protected the physiological and biochemical processes in the plants under stress and repair better than did A. brasilense Sp245. Specifically, root weight increased fivefold during repair, as compared to the noninoculated plants, while chlorophyll a content remained at the level found in the nonstressed controls. The results indicate that these bacteria can be used as components of biofertilizers. A. brasilense Sp245 has favorable prospects for use in temperate latitudes, whereas O. cytisi IPA7.2 can be successfully used in saline and drought-stressed environments.

Graphic abstract

Keywords

Plant cell and tissue culture in vitro Potato Azospirillum brasilense Sp245 Ochrobactrum cytisi IPA7.2 Osmotic stress 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This study was carried out under research theme no. AAAA-A17-117102740097-1. Work with plant materials was supported by the Russian Foundation for Basic Research (Grant No. 19-016-00116). Thanks are due to Mr. Dmitry N. Tychinin (IBPPM RAS) for his help with the preparation of the manuscript.

References

  1. Assmus B, Hutzler P, Kirchhof G, Amann R, Lawrence JR, Hartmann A (1995) In situ localization of Azospirillum brasilense in the rhizosphere of wheat with fluorescently labeled, rRNA-targeted oligonucleotide probes and scanning confocal laser microscopy. Appl Environ Microbiol 61(3):1013–1019PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. Bandeppa S, Paul S, Aggarwal C, Manjunatha BS, Rathi MS (2018) Characterization of osmotolerant rhizobacteria for plant growth promoting activities in vitro and during plant-microbe association under osmotic stress. Indian J Exp Biol 56:582–589Google Scholar
  3. Bashan Y, de-Bashan LE, Prabhu SR, Hernandez JP (2014) Advances in plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculant technology: formulations and practical perspectives (1998–2013). Plant Soil 378:1–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bates LS, Waldren RP, Teare ID (1973) Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant Soil 39:205–207.  https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00018060 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Burygin GL, Popova IA, Kargapolova KY, Tkachenko OV, Matora LY, Shchyogolev SY (2017) A bacterial isolate from the rhizosphere of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) identified as Ochrobactrum lupini IPA7.2. Agric Biol 52(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.15389/agrobiology.2017.1.105eng CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Burygin GL, Kargapolova KY, Kryuchkova YV, Avdeeva ES, Gogoleva NE, Ponomaryova TS, Tkachenko OV (2019) Ochrobactrum cytisi IPA7.2 promotes growth of potato microplants and is resistant to abiotic stress. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 35:55.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-019-2633-x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Cattivelli L, Rizza F, Badeck FW, Mazzucotelli E, Mastrangelo AM, Francia E, Stanca AM (2008) Drought tolerance improvement in crop plants: an integrated view from breeding to genomics. Field Crops Res 105(1–2):1–14.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2007.07.004 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chakraborty U, Chakraborty BN, Chakraborty AP, Dey PL (2013) Water stress amelioration and plant growth promotion in wheat plants by osmotic stress tolerant bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 29:789–803.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-012-1234-8 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Chaves MM, Flexas J, Pinheiro C (2009) Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot 103:551–560.  https://doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcn125 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Dimkpa C, Weinand T, Asch F (2009) Plant-rhizobacteria interactions alleviate abiotic stress conditions. Plant Cell Environ 32(12):1682–1694.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02028.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Döbereiner J, Day JM (1976) Associative symbioses in tropical grasses: characterization of microorganisms and dinitrogen-fixing sites. In: Newton WE, Nyman CJ (eds) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium on Nitrogen Fixation. Washington State University Press, WA, pp 518–538.Google Scholar
  12. Duo LA, Liu CX, Zhao SL (2018) Alleviation of drought stress in turfgrass by the combined application of nano-compost and microbes from compost. Russ J Plant Physiol 65(3):419–426.  https://doi.org/10.1134/s102144371803010x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Etesami H, Maheshwari DK (2018) Use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) with multiple plant growth promoting traits in stress agriculture: action mechanisms and future prospects. Ecotoxicol Environ Saf 156:225–246.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.03.013 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Forni C, Duca D, Glick BR (2016) Mechanisms of plant response to salt and drought stress and their alteration by rhizobacteria. Plant Soil 410(1–2):335–356.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3007-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. García JE, Maroniche G, Creus C, Suárez-Rodríguez R, Ramirez-Trujillo JA, Groppa MD (2017) In vitro PGPR properties and osmotic tolerance of different Azospirillum native strains and their effects on growth of maize under drought stress. Microbiol Res 202:21–29.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2017.04.007 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Glaz NV, Vasiliev AA, Dergileva TT, Mushinskiy AA, Glaz NV, Vasiliev AA, Dergileva TT, Mushinskiy AA (2019) Middle-early and mid-ripening varieties of potato: environmental assessment of flexibility. Far East Agrar Bull 1(49):10–19.  https://doi.org/10.24411/1999-6837-2019-11002 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gusain YS, Singh US, Sharma AK (2015) Bacterial mediated amelioration of drought stress in drought tolerant and susceptible cultivars of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Afr J Biotechnol 14:764–773CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Heidari M, Golpayegani A (2012) Effects of water stress and inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on antioxidant status and photosynthetic pigments in basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). J Saudi Soc Agric Sci 11(1):57–61.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2011.09.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lipiec J, Doussan C, Nosalewicz A, Kondracka K (2013) Effect of drought and heat stresses on plant growth and yield: a review. Int Agrophys 27(4):463–477.  https://doi.org/10.2478/intag-2013-0017 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maksimov IV, Cherepanova EA (2018) Lipopeptides of endophytes and phytoimmunity: prospects for practical use. Biomics 10(1):57–61.  https://doi.org/10.31301/2221-6197.bmcs.2018-13 (In Russian)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Martins SJ, Rocha GA, de Melo HC, de Castro GR, Ulhôa CJ, de Campos DÉ et al (2018) Plant-associated bacteria mitigate drought stress in soybean. Environ Sci Pollut Res 25(14):13676–13686.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-1610-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Matora LYu, Shvartsburd BI, Shchegolev SYu (1998) Immunochemical analysis of O-specific polysaccharides from the soil nitrogen-fixing bacterium Azospirillum brasilense. Microbiology (Moscow) 67:677–681Google Scholar
  23. Meise P, Seddig S, Uptmoor R, Ordon F, Schum A (2018) Impact of nitrogen supply on leaf water relations and physiological traits in a set of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cultivars under drought stress. J Agron Crop Sci 204(4):359–374.  https://doi.org/10.1111/jac.12266 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Miller G, Susuki N, Ciftci-Yilmaz S, Mittler R (2010) Reactive oxygen species homeostasis and signalling during drought and salinity stresses. Plant Cell Environ 33:453–467.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02041.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1962.tb08052.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mustafa S, Kabir S, Shabbir U, Batool R (2019) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in sustainable agriculture: from theoretical to pragmatic approach. Symbiosis 78:115–123.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13199-019-00602-w CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Naseem H, Bano A (2014) Role of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and their exopolysaccharide in drought tolerance of maize. J Plant Interact 9:689–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Nidumukkala S, Tayi L, Chittela RK, Vudem DR, Khareedu VR (2019) DEAD box helicases as promising molecular tools for engineering abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Crit Rev Biotechnol 39:395–407.  https://doi.org/10.1080/07388551.2019.1566204 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Oskuei BK, Bandehagh A, Sarikhani MR, Komatsu S (2017) Protein profiles underlying the effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on canola under osmotic stress. J Plant Growth Regul 37(2):560–574.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00344-017-9754-y CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Ouchterlony O, Nilsson L-A (1978) Immunodiffusion and immunoelectrophoresis. In: Weir DM (ed) Handbook of experimental immunology, vol 1. Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, p 19.1–19.44Google Scholar
  31. Pii Y, Mimmo T, Tomasi N, Terzano R, Cesco S, Crecchio C (2015) Microbial interactions in the rhizosphere: beneficial influences of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on nutrient acquisition process. A review. Biol Fertil Soils 51(4):403–415CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Rubin RL, Groenigen KJ, Hungate BA (2017) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria are more effective under drought: a meta-analysis. Plant Soil 416:309–323.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-016-3007-x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Sziderics AN, Rasche F, Trognitz F, Sessitsch A, Wilhelm E (2007) Bacterial endophytes contribute to abiotic stress adaption in pepper plants (Capsicum annuum L.). Can J Microbiol 53:1195–1202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Titov AF, Talanova VV (2013) Treasurer NM Workshop on the course "The physiological basis of plant resistance to heavy metals": Manual. Karelian Scientific Center of RAS, Petrozavodsk, p 63Google Scholar
  35. Tkachenko OV, Evseeva NV, Boikova NV, Matora LYu, Burygin GL, Lobachev YuV, Shchyogolev SYu (2015) Improved potato microclonal reproduction with the plant-growth promoting rhizobacteria Azospirillum. Agron Sustain Dev 35:1167–1174.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-015-0304-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Veselova SV, Burkhanova GF, Rumyantsev SD, Blagova DK, Maksimov IV (2019) Strains of Bacillus spp. regulate wheat resistance to greenbug aphid Schizaphis graminum Rond. Appl Biochem Microbiol 55(1):41–47.  https://doi.org/10.1134/S0555109919010185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Vurukonda SSKP, Vardharajula S, Shrivastava M, SkZ A (2016) Enhancement of drought stress tolerance in crops by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Microbiol Res 184:13–24.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2015.12.003 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Wellburn AR (1994) The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J Plant Physiol 144:307–313.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0176-1617(11)81192-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Yevstigneyeva SS, Sigida EN, Fedonenko YP, Konnova SA, Ignatov VV Variability of composition and structure of extractable and membrane glycopolymers of Azospirillum brasilense bacteria under salt and temperature stress. Proceedings of the VIII All-Russian Conference of Young Scientists "Strategy of interaction of microorganisms and plants with the environment", 26–30 September 2016. Book of Abstracts, p. 50.Google Scholar
  40. Zvyagintsev D (1991) Methods in soil microbiology and biochemistry. Moscow State University, Moscow (in Russian)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina V. Evseeva
    • 1
    Email author
  • Oksana V. Tkachenko
    • 2
  • Alena Yu. Denisova
    • 2
  • Gennady L. Burygin
    • 1
    • 2
  • Dmitry S. Veselov
    • 3
  • Larisa Yu. Matora
    • 1
  • Sergei Yu. Shchyogolev
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Biochemistry and Physiology of Plants and MicroorganismsRussian Academy of SciencesSaratovRussian Federation
  2. 2.Vavilov Saratov State Agrarian UniversitySaratovRussian Federation
  3. 3.Ufa Institute of Biology, Russian Academy of SciencesUfaRussian Federation

Personalised recommendations