Advertisement

Endophytic Bacteria as a Modern Tool for Sustainable Crop Management Under Stress

  • Yachana Jha
Chapter
Part of the Soil Biology book series (SOILBIOL, volume 55)

Abstract

Plant growth and development under both biotic and abiotic stress is enabled by the bacteria residing in plants, especially in the roots. Of many isolated endophytic bacteria, two isolates, Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes, on the basis of the presence of the nifH gene and growth elevation potential were selected as a tool to develop tolerance in crops under stress. Plants inoculated with such bacteria have better nutrient status under stress. Abiotic stress, especially salinity, causes consequences in altered protein profiling, production of low molecular weight chaperones, as well as production of nontoxic osmo-protectants in plants to overcome stress. Isolated endophytes also induce differential gene expression of β-1,3-glucanase and RAB18, which has been observed during RNA profiling. Such plants acquire better ability to survive under stressful environments. These findings suggest that the ecologically safe endophytic bacteria can be a modest and economic tool for regulating several plant metabolites and opposing stress to enhance crop production by assisting stress management in crop plants. Use of such beneficial bacteria in diverse agronomic systems to develop plants broadly resistant under both stressed and normal states is a current need.

Keywords

Endophytic bacteria Programmmed cell death Biotic stress Abiotic stress Gene induction 

References

  1. Alavilli H, Awasthi JP, Rout GR, Sahoo L, Lee B, Panda SK (2016) Overexpression of a barley aquaporin gene, HvPIP2;5, confers salt and osmotic stress tolerance in yeast and plants. Front Plant Sci 7:1566PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Berg G, Smalla K (2009) Plant species and soil type cooperatively shape the structure and function of microbial communities in the rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 68:1–13PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaves M, Flexas J, Pinheiro C (2008) Photosynthesis under drought and salt stress: regulation mechanisms from whole plant to cell. Ann Bot 103:551–560PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dimkpa CO, Svatos A, Dabrowska P, Schmidt A, Boland W, Kothe E (2008) Involvement of siderophores in the reduction of metal-induced inhibition of auxin synthesis in Streptomyces spp. Chemosphere 74:19–25PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Egamberdieva D (2009) Alleviation of salt stress by plant growth regulators and IAA producing bacteria in wheat. Acta Physiol Plant 31:861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Egamberdieva D, Kucharova Z, Davranov K, Berg G, Makarova N, Azarova T, Chebotar V, Tikhonovich I, Kamilova F, Validov S, Lugtenberg B (2010) Bacteria able to control foot and root rot and to promote growth of cucumber in salinated soils. Biol Fertil Soils 47:197–205CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Etienne P, Diquelou S, Prudent M, Salon C, Maillard A, Ourry A (2018) Macro and micronutrient storage in plants and their remobilization when facing scarcity: the case of drought. Agriculture 8:14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gaiero JR, McCall CA, Thompson KA, Day NJ, Best AS, Dunfield KE (2013) Inside the root microbiome: bacterial root endophytes and plant growth promotion. Am J Bot 100:1738–1750PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gupta P, Ravi I, Sharma V (2013) Induction of β-1,3-glucanase and chitinase activity in the defense response of Eruca sativa plants against the fungal pathogen Alternaria brassicicola. J Plant Interact 8:155–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hardoim PR, Van Overbeek LS, Elass JD (2008) Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth. Trends Microbiol 16(10):463–471PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Horn G, Hofweber R, Kremer W, Kalbitzer HR (2007) Structure and function of bacterial cold shock proteins. Cell Mol Life Sci 64:1457–1470PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hussain M, Ahmed SM, Abderrahman W (2008) Cluster analysis and quality assessment of logged water at an irrigation project, eastern Saudi Arabia. J Environ Manag 86:297–307CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Jha Y (2017) Potassium mobilizing bacteria: enhance potassium intake in paddy to regulate membrane permeability and accumulate carbohydrates under salinity stress. Braz J Biol Sci 4(8):333–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jha Y (2018a) Induction of anatomical, enzymatic, and molecular events in maize by PGPR under biotic stress. In: Meena V (ed) Role of rhizospheric microbes in soil. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  15. Jha Y (2018b) Effects of salinity on growth physiology, accumulation of osmo-protectant and autophagy-dependent cell death of two maize varieties. Russ Agric Sci 44(2):124–130CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jha Y (2019) Endophytic bacteria mediated anti-autophagy and induced catalase, β-1,3-glucanases gene in paddy after infection with pathogen Pyricularia grisea. Indian Phytopathol 72:99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2011) Endophytic Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes shows better response against the Magnaporthe grisea than a rhizospheric Bacillus pumilus in Oryza sativa (rice). Arch Phytopathol Plant Protect 44:592–604CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2013a) Paddy inoculated with PGPR show better growth physiology and nutrient content under salinity. Chilean J Agric Res 73(1):213–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2013b) Root associated bacteria from the rice antagonizes the growth of Magnaporthe grisea. J Plant Pathol Microbiol 4:164Google Scholar
  20. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2014a) Characterization of root associated bacteria from paddy and its growth promotion efficacy. 3 Biotech 4(3):325–330PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2014b) Under saline stress plant growth promoting bacteria affect growth, photosynthesis and antioxidant activities in paddy. Int J Agric Environ Biotechnol 7(2):205–212CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2015) Reduced cell death and improved cell membrane integrity in rice under salinity by root associated bacteria. Theor Exp Plant Physiol 3:227–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2016) Rhizobacteria enhance oil content and physiological status of Hyptis suaveolens under salinity stress. Rhizosphere 1:33–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jha Y, Subramanian RB (2018) From interaction to gene induction: an eco-friendly mechanism of PGPR-mediated stress management in the plant. In: Egamberdieva D, Ahmad P (eds) Plant microbiome: stress response. Microorganisms for sustainability, vol 5. Springer, SingaporeGoogle Scholar
  25. Jha Y, Subramanian RB, Patel S (2011) Combination of endophytic and rhizospheric plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in Oryza sativa shows higher accumulation of osmoprotectant against saline stress. Acta Physiol Plant 33:797–802CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Jha Y, Sablok G, Naidu Subbarao N, Sudhakar R, TurabeFazil MHU, Subramanian RB, Squartini KS (2014a) Bacterial-induced expression of RAB18 protein in Orzya sativa salinity stress and insights into molecular interaction with GTP ligand. J Mol Recognit 27:521–527PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jha Y, Subramanian RB, Jethwa R, Patel N (2014b) Identification of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from Suaeda nudiflora plant and its effect on maize. Indian J Plant Prot 42(4):422–429Google Scholar
  28. Jiang Y, Liang G, Yang S, Yu D (2014) Arabidopsis wrky57 functions as a node of convergence for jasmonic acid- and auxin-mediated signaling in jasmonic acid-induced leaf senescence. Plant Cell 26:230–245PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kandel SL, Herschberger N, Kim SH, Doty SL (2015) Diazotrophic endophytes of poplar and willow for growth promotion of rice plants in nitrogen-limited conditions. Crop Sci 55:1765–1772CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kang BG, Kim WT, Yun HS, Chang SC (2010) Use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria to control stress responses of plant roots. Plant Biotechnol Rep 4:179–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Karpievitch YV, Polpitiya AD, Anderson GA, Smith RD, Dabney AR (2010) Liquid chromatography mass spectrometry-based proteomics: biological and technological aspects. Ann Appl Stat 4(4):1797–1823PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaushal M, Wani S (2015) Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria: drought stress alleviators to ameliorate crop production in dry lands. Ann Microbiol 66.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s13213-015-1112-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lockshin RA, Zakeri Z (2004) When cells die. II: A comprehensive evaluation of apoptosis and programmed cell death. Wiley-Liss, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  34. Lutgtenberg B, Kamilova F (2009) Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 63:541–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mallik S, Nayak M, Sahu BB, Panigrahi AK, Shaw BP (2011) Response of antioxidant enzymes to high NaCl concentration in different salt-tolerant plants. Biol Plant 55:191–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Mayak S, Tirosh T, Glick BR (2004) Plant growth-promoting bacteria that confer resistance to water stress in tomato and pepper. Plant Sci 166:525–530CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Mittler R, Blumwald E (2015) The roles of ROS and ABA in systemic acquired acclimation. Plant Cell 27:64–70PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Munns R, Tester M (2008) Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:651–681PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Ng LM, Melcher K, Teh BT, Xu HE (2014) Abscisic acid perception and signaling: structural mechanisms and applications. Acta Pharmacol Sin 35:567–584PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pozo M, Azcon-Aguilar C (2007) Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10:393–398.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2007.05.004 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Raaijmakers JM, Mazzola M (2015) Diversity and natural functions of antibiotics produced by beneficial and plant pathogenic bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 50:403–424CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Raja N (2013) Biopesticides and biofertilizers: ecofriendly sources for sustainable agriculture. J Biofertil Biopestic 4:e112.  https://doi.org/10.4172/2155-6202.1000e112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Reinhold-Hurek B, Hurek T (2011) Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes. Curr Opin Plant Biol 14:435–443PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Saharan BS, Nehra V (2011) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: a critical review. Life Sci Med Res 20:1–30Google Scholar
  45. Santi C, Bogusz D, Franche C (2013) Biological nitrogen fixation in non-legume plants. Ann Bot 111:743–767PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Santos VB, Araujo SF, Leite LF, Nunes LA, Melo JW (2012) Soil microbial biomass and organic matter fractions during transition from conventional to organic farming systems. Geoderma 170:227–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Shahbaz M, Ashraf M (2013) Improving salinity tolerance in cereals. Crit Rev Plant Sci 32:237–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Shao HB, Chu LY, Jaleel CA, Zhao CX (2008) Water-deficit stress-induced anatomical changes in higher plants. C R Biol 54(3):215–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tester M, Bacic A (2005) Abiotic stress tolerance in grasses. From model plants to crop plants. Plant Physiol 137(3):791–793PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wang WX, Vinocur B, Shoseyov O, Altman A (2004) Role of plant heat-shock proteins and molecular chaperones in the abiotic stress response. Trends Plant Sci 9(5):244–252PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wang F, Wang C, Liu P, Lei C, Hao W, Gao Y (2016) Enhanced rice blast resistance by CRISPR/Cas9-targeted mutagenesis of the ERF transcription factor gene OsERF922. PLoS One 11:e0154027PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Zhonghua C, Cuin TA, Zhou M, Twomey A, Naidu BP, Shabala S (2007) Compatible solute accumulation and stress-mitigating effects in barley genotypes contrasting in their salt tolerance. J Exp Bot 58:4245–4255CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yachana Jha
    • 1
  1. 1.N. V. Patel College of Pure and Applied SciencesS. P. UniversityAnandIndia

Personalised recommendations