Advertisement

Plant Cuticular Waxes: Composition, Function, and Interactions with Microorganisms

  • Viktoria Valeska Zeisler-Diehl
  • Wilhelm Barthlott
  • Lukas SchreiberEmail author
Living reference work entry
Part of the Handbook of Hydrocarbon and Lipid Microbiology book series (HHLM)

Abstract

The interface between leaves and the surrounding environment is formed by the wax-covered plant cuticle, which is hydrophobic and highly impermeable to water and dissolved solutes. The surface itself may become superhydrophobic by complex three-dimensional wax crystals. There is evidence that this system evolved already early with the colonization of land some 450 million years ago. Although the leaf surface represents a hostile environment, because water and nutrient availability is very limited and variations in temperature and light intensity can be quite large, it forms the habitat for specialized epiphyllic microorganisms successfully colonizing the leaf surface which is also called phyllosphere. Certain strategies improving living conditions within the phyllosphere have been developed by epiphyllic microorganisms. They can significantly enhance leaf surface wetting and water permeability of the hydrophobic cuticle. This interaction significantly increases the abundance of water on the leaf surface, and as a consequence, leaching of nutrients to the leaf surface should be increased, thus becoming available for epiphyllic microorganisms. This strategy is supported by the ability of biosurfactant production, which represents a common and important adaptation of epiphyllic microorganisms.

1 Introduction

Outer epidermal cell walls of leaves and fruits are covered by the plant cuticle (Riederer and Müller 2006). It represents an extracellular lipid polymer of hydroxy fatty acids, which are esterified and in addition often linked by ether bonds and direct carbon/carbon bonds between the monomers (Pollard et al. 2009; Villena et al. 1999). Furthermore, the cuticle contains cell wall carbohydrates extending from the epidermal cell into the cutin polymer (Guzman et al. 2014; Segado et al. 2016). Cuticular waxes are deposited on the outer surface (epicuticular wax) and within (intracuticular wax) the cutin polymer (Samuels et al. 2009). Cuticular waxes, which are diverse in their chemical composition (Buschhaus and Jetter 2011), are solid and partially crystalline at room temperature (Reynhardt and Riederer 1994). Due to this highly ordered structure of cuticular waxes on the molecular level, they seal the plant cuticle and make it highly impermeable to water and dissolved organic and inorganic solutes (Schreiber and Schönherr 2009). The evolutionary invention of cuticles sealing aboveground parts of higher land living plants represented an important adaptation for successfully colonizing the mainland about 450 to 500 million years ago (Kenrick and Crane 1997). There is good evidence that superhydrophobicity caused by epicuticular wax crystals already evolved in the late Ordovician or Silurian (Barthlott et al. 2016). Apoplastic hydrophobic barriers were a key innovation in plants for life outside of water (Niklas et al. 2017).

The largest fraction of the terrestrial biomass is formed by plants representing the main primary producers by photosynthesis (Groombridge and Jenkins 2002). Leaves as the sites of photosynthesis are designed as two-dimensional organs with larger surface area/volume ratios for efficiently absorbing sun light. Consequently, leaf surfaces form a large surface area which amounts to 1 billion square kilometers, thus being 6.8-times larger than the surface of the mainland on earth (Vorholt 2012). All leaf surfaces are covered by a waxy cuticle forming the habitat for microorganisms which has been named phyllosphere (Ruinen 1961). Since more than half a century, the microbial ecology of the phyllosphere represents interdisciplinary research conducted by a small but diverse group of scientists mostly from either microbial ecology or plant sciences (Bailey et al. 2006). They are interested in studying and understanding the hydrophobic leaf surfaces as habitats for microorganisms (Fig. 1) investigating basic ecological questions such as abiotic and biotic factors in this habitat (Meyer and Leveau 2012), microbial diversity (Whipps et al. 2008), interactions between microorganisms (Hunter et al. 2010) and between microorganisms and waxy leaf surfaces (Knoll and Schreiber 2004), and immigration and emigration of microorganisms (Kinkel 1997). It has been estimated that 106 to 107 bacteria per square centimeter can live on the surface of an individual leaf (Lindow and Brandl 2003). Compared to bacteria, fungi as further important group of microorganisms have been less studied.
Fig. 1

Schematic cross section through the outer leaf surface with a trichome and guard cells. (a) detail, (b) overview. Epidermal cells surrounded by the cell membrane (red), the cell wall (gray), the cuticle (green), epi- and intracuticular waxes (blue), and bacterial cells (black) sitting on the waxy cuticle surface

In this review, we will focus on leaf surfaces from a plant scientist’s view. We will shortly describe the chemical composition of epicuticular waxes, forming the chemical basis of this habitat, and we will discuss the function of cuticular waxes essentially establishing the barrier properties of the leaf surface. Finally, modifications of the waxy leaf surface by microorganisms and interactions between microorganisms (mainly bacteria) and waxy leaf surfaces will be discussed. The focus will be mostly, but not exclusively, on epiphyllic nonpathogenic bacteria. However, pathogenic as well as nonpathogenic microorganisms (bacteria and fungi) face the same conditions and problems when arriving on the leaf surface and trying to establish there; thus, examples given here could also apply to pathogenic microorganisms.

2 Composition of Plant Cuticular Waxes

Plant cuticular waxes represent a highly diverse mixture of aliphatic compounds (Jetter et al. 2006). They can be extracted with organic solvents from the surfaces of leaves, fruits, and shoots in their primary developmental state (Riederer and Schneider 1989). The chemical composition of cuticular wax can best be analyzed using gas chromatography and mass spectroscopy (Kolattukudy and Walton 1973). Two major fractions have been described: linear long-chain aliphatics and pentacyclic triterpenoids (Jetter et al. 2006). Biosynthesis of cuticular wax is described in a separate article of this volume (Joubes and Domergue 2018); thus, it will not be discussed in detail here. Linear long-chain aliphatic compounds are essentially derivatives of C16 and C18 fatty acids, which are elongated and in addition functionally modified (Kunst and Samuels 2003). Pentacyclic triterpenoids are derived from the terpenoid pathway composed of 6 C5 units finally leading to C30 molecules (Wang et al. 2011).

The fraction of linear, long-chain aliphatic molecules mainly consists of fatty acids, alcohols, aldehydes, and alkanes with chain lengths varying between C16 and C35 (Fig. 2). Esters formed between fatty acids and alcohols are consequently characterized by extraordinarily long chain lengths between C32 and C64. Besides these most common compound classes, a large number of additional more specialized compound classes (ketones, secondary alcohols, diols, etc.) have been described and characterized as more specific wax constituents occurring within certain taxonomic groups (Jetter et al. 2006). Whereas linear long-chain aliphatic compounds occur as a relevant fraction in all samples of cuticular wax analyzed so far, pentacyclic triterpenoids can form a significant or even the major wax fraction in certain taxonomic groups (Jetter et al. 2006), whereas they are almost or completely absent in other species. This chemical diversity of plant waxes is visualized by the high complexity and diversity of the three-dimensional crystalline epicuticular wax covers, which is determined by their chemistry (Barthlott et al. 1998).
Fig. 2

Examples of the chemical structure of the four most abundant classes (alkanes, alcohols, acids, and aldehydes) of linear long-chain aliphatic wax constituents. Chain lengths of the molecules can vary between C16 and C35

3 Function of Plant Cuticular Waxes

Cuticular waxes, which are deposited within the outer fraction of the cutin polymer and on the outer surface of the cutin polymer, form the interface between the plant and the surrounding atmosphere. Depending on the plant species, the organ and the developmental state wax coverage can significantly vary (Wang et al. 2015). Most leaves are characterized by a wax coverage varying between 10 and 100 μg per square centimeter (Schreiber and Riederer 1996). When assuming a wax density of 1 g per cm3, this leads to a thickness of the wax layer on leaf surfaces between 10 and 100 nm. This very thin wax layer in fact forms the actual interface between the leaf and the environment.

Making leaf surfaces non-wettable or even superhydrophobic represents one of the main functions of epicuticular waxes. This phenomenon is best known as Lotus effect (Barthlott and Neinhuis 1997). Wax molecules, which are mostly composed of methyl and methylene groups, are hydrophobic and thus water-repellent leading to contact angles of 90 degree (Holmes-Farley et al. 1988). However, with the formation of three-dimensional epicuticular wax crystallites, contact angles can be significantly increased reaching values of 140 to 175 degrees, which is also of considerable interest for biomimetic technical applications (Barthlott et al. 2017). This renders leaf surfaces essentially non-wettable. This effect prevents guard cells from infiltration with water, which would inhibit gas exchange, and it would offer microorganisms, colonizing the leaf surface, a route into the leaf interior (apoplastic space), which must be avoided.

Besides rendering leaf surfaces non-wettable, cuticular waxes have to seal the cuticle, making it highly impermeable to water and dissolved molecules (Schönherr and Riederer 1989). The cutin polymer itself is highly permeable since upon wax extraction with organic solvents, permeability of plant cuticles increases by 2 to 3 orders of magnitude (Fig. 3; Schönherr 1976; Schönherr and Lendzian 1981). Thus, only with cuticular waxes, which are solid and partially crystalline at room temperature, cuticles represent efficient transport barriers. It is still a matter of debate whether intracuticular or both epi- and intracuticular waxes establish the transport barrier of cuticles. Epicuticular waxes can selectively be removed from the cuticle surface by mechanical stripping (Jetter et al. 2000). Thus, cuticular permeability can be measured before and after removal of epicuticular wax. Whereas in some experiments it was found that the cuticular transport barrier is essentially established by the intracuticular wax fraction (Zeisler and Schreiber 2016), in other experiments, a contribution of both epi- and intracuticular waxes to total barrier properties was described for some species (Jetter and Riederer 2016).
Fig. 3

Effect of cuticular wax extraction on permeability of leaf cuticles. Permeances for water [m s−1] were measured for intact cuticular membranes (CM) and wax-free cuticular membranes (MX). Upon wax extraction with organic solvent, permeances increased by factors between 100 and 1000. (Data from Schönherr and Lendzian 1981)

Since it is the cuticular wax establishing the transport barrier, methods have been developed studying transport properties of isolated cuticular wax. Chloroform-extracted wax can be re-crystallized as thin layers, and sorption and diffusion of organic molecules in these wax layers using radiolabeled probes can be measured (Schreiber and Schönherr 1993). These experiments confirmed that it is the cuticular wax layer sealing the cutin polymer and thus establishing the cuticular transport barrier. Diffusion coefficients of solutes, which were sufficiently soluble in re-crystallized wax, e.g., benzoic acid or salicylic acid, was as low as 10−17 m2 s−1 (Kirsch et al. 1997). These are diffusion coefficients which are several orders of magnitude lower compared to diffusion of comparable molecules in water, where diffusions coefficients are in the range of 10−10 to 10−12 m2 s−1 (Cussler 1984).

It was described within the last decades that polar compounds, e.g., ions and charged organic molecules, which are basically insoluble in the lipophilic cutin and wax phase, can diffuse along a polar path of transport across the cuticle (Schönherr 2006). It is postulated that these polar paths of transport are formed at sites in the cuticle where carbohydrates from the outer epidermal cell wall extend into the cutin polymer and thus form these polar regions within the hydrophobic cutin polymer. The occurrence of these polar paths of transport, which are preferentially observed in the cuticle covering guard cells, trichomes, and anticlinal cell walls (Schreiber 2005), should be of special relevance for microorganisms sitting on the leaf surfaces. At these sites of the leaves, higher amounts of essential nutrients diffuse from the leaf interior to the leaf surface, where they could be metabolized by epiphyllic microorganisms. It was in fact described that epiphyllic microorganisms preferentially colonized these niches (base of trichomes, surrounding of guard cells, and anticlinal cell walls) of the leaf surfaces (Krimm et al. 2005; Leveau and Lindow 2001).

4 Interactions of Microorganisms with Plant Cuticular Waxes

The leaf surface represents a very harsh habitat with unfavorable environmental conditions. Light conditions, including UV light, temperature, and humidity can vary extremely on a diurnal and annual scale (Lindow and Brandl 2003; Vorholt 2012). Due to the high impermeability and the pronounced lipophilicity of the cuticle, nutrient and water availability is very limited, because (1) wetting of the leaf surface is poor if not impossible (Koch et al. 2008) and (2) the diffusion resistance of the cuticle is very high, although the outer epidermal cell wall below the cuticle is fully saturated with water and the apoplast (plant cell wall space) contains ions, sugars, and amino acids (Lohaus et al. 2001; Ruan et al. 1996). Nevertheless, leaf surfaces are frequently colonized by microorganisms, although depending on the corresponding environmental conditions, colonization can vary largely (Kinkel 1997). Consequently, any strategy of microorganisms changing physicochemical properties of leaf surface, e.g., increasing leaf surface wettability or cuticular permeability for water and dissolved nutrients, should be beneficial for survival in the phyllosphere.

It has been shown that leaf (Knoll and Schreiber 1998) and needle surface wettability (Schreiber 1996), quantified by contact angles of water, significantly increased with the intensity of colonization by microorganisms. With conifer needles, it was observed by scanning electron microscopy that colonization of the wax-covered needle surfaces with microorganisms significantly increased with needle age increasing form the current year to the fourth year (Fig. 4). Artificial colonization of silanized, hydrophobic glass surfaces with specific bacteria (Pseudomonas fluorescens) confirmed these observations. The degree of the contact angle of water was highly correlated and decreased with increasing relative fractions of the glass surface covered by bacteria (Fig. 5). Obviously, the droplet of water used for measuring the contact angle is in contact with the polar outer surface of the bacterial cell wall instead of the lipophilic waxy leaf surface, and depending on the intensity of bacterial colonization, this leads to a continuous decrease in contact angles.
Fig. 4

Contact angles of water droplets measured on Abies grandis needle surfaces. Contact angles decreased with increasing needle age between the current year (0) and the fourth year (4). Data from Schreiber (1996)

Fig. 5

Contact angles of water droplets measured on silanized glass surfaces colonized with bacterial cells (Pseudomonas fluorescens). Contact angles decreased with increasing density of surface colonization by bacterial cells from 95 to about 30 degree. (Data from Knoll and Schreiber 1998)

In addition, it has been described that epiphyllic bacteria living on the hydrophobic leaf surface can form an extracellular matrix (EPS: extracellular polymeric substances), which protects microorganisms from rapid dehydration and direct exposure to UV light (Morris and Monier 2003). Since EPS are composed of carbohydrates, which by nature are polar compared to the lipophilic water-repellent wax molecules, consequently this also leads to enhanced leaf surface wettability. The occurrence of biosurfactants can be considered as a further efficient strategy increasing leaf surface wetting. Many epiphyllic bacteria (Burch et al. 2016) and also some epiphyllic fungi (Bhardwaj et al. 2013) are characterized by the ability to synthesize biosurfactants and export them to the leaf surface. Biosurfactants, as synthetic surfactants, are amphiphilic and thus can efficiently mediate between the hydrophobic water-repellent waxy leaf surface and polar water. Biosurfactants covering a hydrophobic leaf surface can lead to significantly improved wetting of the water-repellent hydrophobic waxy leaf surface (Bunster et al. 1989).

In addition, biosurfactants will also significantly increase overall water availability in the phyllosphere since they are hygroscopic and tend to efficiently bind water to the leaf surface at a given humidity normally much lower than 100%, at which water would not tend to bind to a clean bacteria- and biosurfactant-free lipophilic leaf surface. Since water is very limited in the phyllosphere and biosurfactants can increase water availability, they also enhance survival of epiphyllic bacteria. Biosurfactant-deficient mutants sowed a significantly decreased survival rate in the phyllosphere with varying humidity compared to the biosurfactant-producing wildtype (Burch et al. 2014). Bacterial population densities significantly decreased in periods of reduced humidity, and recovery of bacterial population density of the biosurfactant-producing strain compared to the biosurfactant-deficient mutant was much higher.

Bacteria living on the outer hydrophobic leaf surface could use three different sources of nutrients. (1) They can use nutrients deposited via rain and fog droplets or dust from the atmosphere to the leaf surface (Lindberg et al. 1986). (2) The living leaf interior below the cuticle represents a nutrient-rich source which contains essentially all inorganic (ions) and organic (C-, N-sources, etc.) nutrients needed by microorganisms. (3) Finally, the leaf surface itself composed of wax and cutin monomers could represent a carbon and energy source. Concerning the leaf interior as a potential nutrient source, it must be kept in mind that the outer leaf surface is highly isolated from the leaf interior (symplastic as well as apoplastic space) by the fairly impermeable plant cuticle. Especially permeability of charged ions and polar organic compounds, e.g., sugars and amino acids, across the lipophilic plant cuticle is very low (Schönherr 2006). In the past model calculations predicted that the plant cuticle would not allow diffusion of significant amounts of ions and polar organic solutes across cuticles to be used by epiphyllic bacteria as nutrient sources (Schönherr and Baur 1996).

These model calculations however were based on a very specialized experimental system exclusively using isolated cuticular membranes which were free of guard cells and trichomes. In following transport and permeability studies using intact leaves, which had guard cells and trichomes, it became evident that the cuticle-covering guard cells, trichomes, and also anticlinal cell walls represented sites where polar compounds obviously could more efficiently leach through the cuticle to the leaf surface (Schlegel et al. 2005; Schreiber 2005; Schönherr 2006). Microscopic observations studying the distribution of epiphyllic bacteria on the leaf surface in fact found that trichomes, guard cells, and anticlinal cell walls represented niches preferentially colonized by epiphyllic microorganisms (Krimm et al. 2005; Leveau and Lindow 2001). Obviously, epiphyllic microorganisms select these specific sites in the phyllosphere because of increased nutrient availability. Thus, this lateral heterogeneity within the leaf surface, which is very common with many leaf surfaces, should not be ignored when studying the interaction between leaf surfaces and microorganisms. It was also observed that lower leaf sides are often more densely colonized by epiphyllic microorganisms compared to the upper leaf side (Krimm et al. 2005). The reasons for this are probably the protection of microorganisms from direct irradiation and the higher abundance or exclusive occurrence of guard cells on the lower leaf side, which will lead to higher ambient humidity at the leaf surface due to the stomatal transpiration. Thus, exposure of microorganisms to various environmental conditions is less harsh on the lower compared to the upper leaf side.

Utilization of wax (and potentially cutin) constituents as carbon and energy sources could also represent a nutrition strategy of epiphyllic microorganisms. However, up to now, direct experimental results verifying that wax (and cutin) could be used as carbon and energy source are still missing. There are observations that epiphyllic microorganisms can lead to significant visual changes in the appearance of the leaf surface (Ueda et al. 2015). This has been interpreted as a potential enzymatic degradation of cutin and/or wax; however, direct chemical or biochemical evidence for the metabolism of cutin or wax constituents is not yet available. Scanning electron microscopic investigations of a fungus growing on the leaf surface of a Euphorbiaceae (Euphorbia myrsinites), characterized by a dense coverage with epicuticular wax platelets, show for the first time impressively that wax platelets along the growing hyphae disappear (Fig. 6). The underlying mechanism, whether it is “wax melting,” eventually induced by biosurfactants, or enzymatic wax degradation by extracellular enzymes, or the presence of an extracellular fungal substance similar to EPS just covering the wax platelets is not yet solved. Nevertheless, these dramatic changes of the highly ordered leaf surface waxes should lead to significant changes in the physicochemical properties of the waxy leaf surface, e.g., enhanced wetting, and thus be advantageous for the epiphyllic fungus.
Fig. 6

Fungal hyphae growing on the leaf surface of Euphorbia myrsinites densely covered with epicuticular wax platelets. (a) Overview, (b) detail. Wax platelets completely disappeared in the vicinity of the fungal hyphae

It is remarkable that epiphyllic microorganisms are often characterized by the ability of biosurfactant production (Bhardwaj et al. 2013; Burch et al. 2016). Besides enhancing leaf surface wetting and increasing water availability, biosurfactants might be essential for microbial wax degradation. It is well known that certain environmental strains of bacteria are capable of degrading petroleum constituents (Ron and Rosenberg 2002). An essential prerequisite for degrading these lipophilic compounds represents the ability of these bacteria to synthesize biosurfactants, which solubilize the petroleum molecules in water and thus make them available to bacteria for the enzymatic degradation. Different from plant waxes, which are solid and partially crystalline at room temperature (Reynhardt and Riederer 1994) due to their chain lengths between C20 and C64, chain lengths of petroleum start at C1 and can extend to C70 and even higher. The liquid petroleum fraction with chain lengths between C1 and C20 is characterized by higher water solubilities and lower octanol-water partition coefficients compared to the solid fraction with chain lengths higher than C20. Thus, this petroleum fraction with short chain lengths is more accessible to biosurfactant-mediated degradation by extracellular microbial enzymes. Bacterial degradation of very lipophilic and highly water-insoluble plant waxes, where chain lengths start at C20, will be a lot more challenging.

With the production of biosurfactants, enhancing leaf surface wetting and water availability, living conditions in the leaf surface habitats are already changed in favor of epiphyllic microorganisms. As a further strategy, it should also be of major advantage to enhance leaf surface permeability and thus potentially increase nutrient leaching from inside of the leaf to the leaf surface. It is well known that synthetic surfactants used in spray solutions in agrochemistry not only enhance leaf surface wetting of the spray droplets (Kirkwood 1999) but also act as plasticizers within the transport-limiting barrier of the plant cuticle made of wax (Schreiber 2006). As a consequence, diffusion rates of agrochemicals across the transport-limiting plant cuticle into the leaf are significantly enhanced (Shi et al. 2005).

It has been described that epiphyllic bacteria when inoculated to the surface of isolated cuticles could increase cuticular water permeability by two-fold (Fig. 7; Burch et al. 2014; Schreiber et al. 2005). This effect was most pronounced with bacteria-producing biosurfactants. Although water itself does not represent a nutrient, this enhanced cuticular permeability of water increases water availability for epiphyllic microorganisms living in the phyllosphere. Furthermore, increased amounts of water present on the leaf surface, especially in the presence of biosurfactants, should form a sink for ions and organic solutes and enhance the leaching of these compounds through the cuticle to the leaf surface, which will not occur on a dry water-free leaf surface.
Fig. 7

Effect of bacteria colonizing the surface of cuticles isolated from cherry laurel (bars 1 to 4) and ivy (bars 5 to 8) on cuticular water permeability. Water permeability increased by factors up to 1.5-fold in the presence of the bacteria compared to the control (treatment of the cuticle surface with water). (Data from Schreiber et al. 2005)

The exact mechanism how this increase in rates of cuticular water permeability is achieved is not yet known. However, it is unlikely that the mechanism increasing cuticular permeability, which has been described for technical surfactants used in agrochemistry (Schreiber 2006), is the same here. These technical surfactants reducing barrier properties of plant cuticles are on average much smaller (molecular weights around 300–500) compared to biosurfactants (molecular weights around 1000), and they are generally uncharged and fairly lipophilic. These technical surfactants, which enhance cuticular permeability by one order of magnitude or even more, are sorbed in significant amounts in the transport-limiting wax layer and thus cause this described plasticizing effect (Burghardt et al. 1998). With much larger, polar, and charged biosurfactants (Parra et al. 1989), such a mode of action seems to be less probable. Nevertheless, this effect of biosurfactants enhancing rates of cuticular water permeability, although the mode of action remains to be solved, represents an important strategy improving living conditions within the phyllosphere.

A very specific type of recognition between a fungal pathogen (Blumeria) and its host (barley) based on the chemical composition of the epicuticular wax fraction has been discovered recently (Hansjakob et al. 2010; Zabka et al. 2008). It was found that specifically linear-long chain aldehydes, with n-hexacosanal being the most effective compound, were strongly inducing germination and further differentiation of conidia on both the surface of barley leaves and on artificial model surfaces which were spiked with the corresponding aldehydes varying in chain length. Other linear long-chain aliphatic compounds also occurring in barely wax, including primary fatty acids, n-alkanes, primary alcohols, or esters, were obviously not sensed by the conidia since germination was affected.

Within the last years, genomic and proteomic approaches and the smart combination of both approaches (proteogenomics) revealed that there is also sensing across the cuticle between epiphyllic bacteria and the plant leading to specific gene expression and protein synthesis in bacteria (Delmotte et al. 2009). In adaptation to the availability of specific nutrients available on the leaf surface, characteristic patterns of proteins were detectable, which were synthesized by bacteria. This included enzymes utilizing methanol, which is evolving from the leaf interior reaching the leaf surface via diffusion through guard cells and thus can be utilized by epiphyllic bacteria. Furthermore, expression and synthesis of transporters involved in bacterial transport of carbohydrates, originating from the leaf interior and being available in the phyllosphere, has been described. Using this approach in future, specific interactions between leaves and epiphyllic microorganisms on the molecular level can be studied in more detail.

5 Research Needs

Future research questions regarding leaf surfaces and the interaction with microorganisms should address specific questions related to the three areas: (i) diversity of wax chemistry, (ii) function of the cuticular transport barrier, and (iii) active modification of the leaf surface by microorganisms.

Wax chemistry: Why is there such a tremendous diversity in wax chemistry (chain lengths, compound classes, and functionalities) between different plant organs but also between different plant species? Each species has its unique wax composition, but to date, there is no convincing answer why this is needed. Is it the specific “wax flavor” at the outer surface of the leaf, which regulates the interaction of every individual species with the surrounding abiotic and biotic environment including epiphyllic microorganisms? Can an individual species-specific wax composition be recognized by a specific microorganism thus allowing the identification of its host?

Cuticular transport barrier: Further research is needed to clarify why certain regions of the leaf surface (guard cells, trichomes, anticlinal cell walls) are characterized by an enhanced diffusion of polar compounds through the cuticle to the leaf surface. Guard cells, trichomes, cuticular permeability? However, since trichomes and guard cells represent structures which are abundant on many leaf surfaces, future studies in phyllosphere microbiology should focus on intact leaves characterized by these structures, which seem to be of major significance for nutrient availability for epiphyllic microorganisms living on leaves.

Leaf surface/microorganism interactions: Besides increasing leaf surface wetting, there is good evidence that epiphyllic microorganisms can increase cuticular water permeability to some extent. However, the mechanism how this is achieved still remains unknown. The questions to be solved are whether biosurfactants themselves could cause this effect or if there is any activity of wax- and/or cutin-degrading enzymes contributing to this effect of enhanced cuticular water permeability? If there would be any active microbial metabolisms involved, this also raises the question whether cuticular wax and/or cutin could be used as a carbon and energy source? There is convincing microscopical evidence that epiphyllic fungi can significantly change the three-dimensional epicuticular wax structure (Fig. 6), but the underlying mechanisms causing this observation are not known to date. It is also not known in detail what signals can be exchanged across the cuticle between epiphyllic microorganisms and the living leaf tissue below and whether this could lead to mutual responses in both plants and epiphyllic microorganisms?

Notes

Acknowledgments

Long-lasting financial support by the DFG (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft) to LS is gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. Bailey MJ, Lilley AK, Timms-Wilson TM, Spencer-Phillips PTN (2006) Microbial ecology of aerial plant surfaces. CABI, WallingfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barthlott W, Mail M, Bhushan B, Koch K (2017) Plant surfaces: structures and functions for biomimetic innovations. Nano-Micro Letters 9:23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barthlott W, Mail M, Neinhuis C (2016) Superhydrophobic hierarchically structured surfaces in biology: evolution, structural principles and biomimetic applications. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 374:20160–20191CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barthlott W, Neinhuis C (1997) Purity of the sacred lotus, or escape from contamination in biological surfaces. Planta 202:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Barthlott W, Neinhuis C, Cutler D, Ditsch F, Meusel I, Theisen I, Wilhelmi H (1998) Classification and terminology of plant epicuticular waxes. Bot J Linn Soc 126:237–260CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhardwaj G, Cameotra SS, Chopra HK (2013) Biosurfactants from fungi: a review. J Pet Environ Biotechnol 4:1–6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bunster L, Fokkema NJ, Schippers B (1989) Effect of surface-active Pseudomonas spp. on leaf wettability. Appl Environ Microbiol 55:1340–1345PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Burch AY, Do PT, Sbodio A, Suslow TV, Lindow SE (2016) High-level culturability of epiphytic bacteria and frequency of biosurfactant producers on leaves. Appl Environ Microbiol 82:5997–6009CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Burch AY, Zeisler V, Yokota K, Schreiber L, Lindow SE (2014) The hygroscopic biosurfactant syringafactin produced by Pseudomonas syringae enhances fitness on leaf surfaces during fluctuating humidity. Environ Microbiol 16:2086–2098CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Burghardt M, Schreiber L, Riederer M (1998) Enhancement of the diffusion of active ingredients in barley leaf cuticular wax by monodisperse alcohol ethoxylates. J Agric Food Chem 46:1593–1602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Buschhaus C, Jetter R (2011) Composition differences between epicuticular and intracuticular wax substructures: how do plants seal their epidermal surfaces? J Exp Bot 62:841–853CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Cussler EL (1984) Diffusion. Mass transfer in fluid systems. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  13. Delmotte N, Knief C, Chaffron S, Innerebner G, Roschitzki B, Schlapbach R, von Mering C, Vorholt JA (2009) Community proteogenomics reveals insights into the physiology of phyllosphere bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 106:16428–16433CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. Groombridge B, Jenkins M (2002) World atlas of biodiversity: Earth’s living resources in the 21st century. University of California Press, BerkeleyGoogle Scholar
  15. Guzman P, Fernandez V, Graca J, Cabral V, Kayali N, Khayet M, Gil L (2014) Chemical and structural analysis of Eucalyptus globulus and E. camaldulensis leaf cuticles: a lipidized cell wall region. Front Plant Sci.  https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2014.00481
  16. Hansjakob A, Bischof S, Bringmann G, Riederer M, Hildebrandt U (2010) Very-long-chain aldehydes promote in vitro prepenetration processes of Blumeria graminis in a dose- and chain length-dependent manner. New Phytol 188:1039–1054CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes-Farley SR, Bain CD, Whitesides GM (1988) Wetting of functionalized polyethylene film having ionizable organic acids and bases at the polymer-water interface: relations between functional group polarity, extent of ionisation, and contact angle with water. Langmuir 4:921–937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hunter PJ, Hand P, Pink D, Whipps JM, Bending GD (2010) Both leaf properties and microbe-microbe interactions influence within-species variation in bacterial population diversity and structure in the lettuce (Lactuca species) phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:8117–8125CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Jetter R, Kunst L, Samuels AL (2006) Composition of plant cuticular waxes. In: Riederer M, Müller C (eds) Biology of the plant cuticle. Blackwell, Oxford, pp 145–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Jetter R, Riederer M (2016) Localization of the transpiration barrier in the epi- and intracuticular waxes of eight plant species: water transport resistances are associated with fatty acyl rather than alicyclic components. Plant Physiol 170:921–934CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Jetter R, Schäffer S, Riederer M (2000) Leaf cuticular waxes are arranged in chemically and mechanically distinct layers: evidence from Prunus laurocerasus L. Plant Cell Environ 23:619–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Joubes J, Domergue F (2018) Biosynthesis of the plant cuticle. In: Wilkes H (ed) Hydrocarbons, oils and lipids: diversity, origin, chemistry and fate, Handbook of hydrocarbon and lipid microbiology. Springer, Berlin.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-54529-5_8-1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kenrick P, Crane PR (1997) The origin and early evolution of plants on land. Nature 389:33–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kinkel LL (1997) Microbial population dynamics on leaves. Annu Rev Phytopathol 35:327–347CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Kirkwood RC (1999) Recent developments in our understanding of the plant cuticle as a barrier to the foliar uptake of pesticides. Pestic Sci 55:69–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kirsch T, Kaffarnik F, Riederer M, Schreiber L (1997) Cuticular permeability of the three tree species Prunus laurocerasus L., Ginkgo biloba L. and Juglans regia L. - comparative investigation of the transport properties of intact leaves, isolated cuticles and reconstituted cuticular waxes. J Exp Bot 48:1035–1045CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Knoll D, Schreiber L (1998) Influence of epiphytic micro-organisms on leaf wettability: wetting of the upper leaf surface of Juglans regia L. and of model surfaces in relation to colonisation by micro-organisms. New Phytol 140:271–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Knoll D, Schreiber L (2004) Methods for analysing the interactions between epiphyllic microorgansisms and leaf cuticles. In: Varma A, Abbott L, Werner D, Hampp R (eds) Plant surface microbiology. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 471–487Google Scholar
  29. Koch K, Bhushan B, Barthlott W (2008) Diversity of structure, morphology and wetting of plant surfaces. Soft Matter 4:1943–1963CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kolattukudy PE, Walton TJ (1973) The biochemistry of plant cuticular lipids. Prog Chem Fats Other Lipids 13:119–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Krimm U, Abanda-Nkpwatt D, Schwab W, Schreiber L (2005) Epiphytic microorganisms on strawberry plants (Fragaria ananassa cv. Elsanta): identification of bacterial isolates and analysis of their interaction with leaf surfaces. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 53:483–492CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Kunst L, Samuels AL (2003) Biosynthesis and secretion of plant cuticular wax. Prog Lipid Res 42:51–80CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Leveau JHJ, Lindow SE (2001) Appetite of an epiphyte: quantitative monitoring of bacterial sugar consumption in the phyllosphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98:3446–3453CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. Lindberg SE, Lovett GM, Richter DD, Johnson DW (1986) Atmospheric deposition and canopy interactions of major ions in a forest. Science 231:141–146CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Lindow SE, Brandl MT (2003) Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol 69:1875–1883CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Lohaus G, Pennewiss K, Sattelmacher B, Hussmann M, Mühling KH (2001) Is the infiltration-centrifugation technique appropriate for the isolation of apoplastic fluid? A critical evaluation with different plant species. Physiol Plant 111:457–465CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. Meyer KM, Leveau JHJ (2012) Microbiology of the phyllosphere: a playground for testing ecological concepts. Oecologia 168:621–629CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Morris CE, Monier JM (2003) The ecological significance of biofilm formation by plant-associated bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41:429–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Niklas KJ, Cobb ED, Matas AJ (2017) The evolution of hydrophobic cell wall biopolymers: from algae to angiosperms. J Eperiment Botany.  https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erx215
  40. Parra JL, Guinea J, Manresa MA, Robert M, Mercadé ME, Comelles F, Bosch MP (1989) Chemical characterization and physicochemical behavior of biosurfactants. J Am Oil Chem Soc 66:141–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Pollard M, Beisson F, Li YH, Ohlrogge JB (2009) Building lipid barriers: biosynthesis of cutin and suberin. Trends Plant Sci 13:236–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Reynhardt EC, Riederer M (1994) Structures and molecular dynamics of plant waxes. II Cuticular waxes from leaves of Fagus sylvatica L. and Hordeum vulgare L. Eur Biophys J 23:59–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Riederer M, Müller C (2006) Biology of the plant cuticle. Blackwell Publishing, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Riederer M, Schneider G (1989) Comparative study of the composition of waxes extracted from isolated leaf cuticles and from whole leaves of Citrus: evidence for selective extraction. Physiol Plant 77:373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Ron EZ, Rosenberg E (2002) Biosurfactants and oil bioremediation. Curr Opin Biotechnol 13:249–252CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Ruan YL, Patrick JW, Brady CJ (1996) The composition of apoplast fluid recovered from intact developing tomato fruit. Aust J Plant Physiol 23:9–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ruinen J (1961) The phyllosphere: 1. An ecologically neglected milieu. Plant Soil 15:81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Samuels L, Kunst L, Jetter R (2009) Sealing plant surfaces: cuticular wax formation by epidermal cells. Annu Rev Plant Biol 59:683–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schlegel TK, Schönherr J, Schreiber L (2005) Size selectivity of aqueous pores in stomatous cuticles of Vicia faba leaves. Planta 221:648–655CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Schönherr J (1976) Water permeability of isolated cuticular membranes: the effect of cuticular waxes on diffusion of water. Planta 131:159–164CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Schönherr J (2006) Characterization of aqueous pores in plant cuticles and permeation of ionic solutes. J Exp Bot 57:2471–2491CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Schönherr J, Baur P (1996) Cuticle permeability studies - a model for estimating leaching of plant metabolits to leaf surfaces. In: Morris CE, Nicot PC, Nguyen-The C (eds) Aerial plant surface microbiology. Plenum Press, New York, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  53. Schönherr J, Lendzian K (1981) A simple and inexpensive method of measuring water permeability of isolated plant cuticular membranes. Z Pflanzenphysiol 102:321–327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schönherr J, Riederer M (1989) Foliar penetration and accumulation of organic chemicals in plant cuticles. Rev Environ Contam Toxicol 108:1–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Schreiber L (1996) Wetting of the upper needle surface of Abies grandis: influence of pH, wax chemistry and epiphyllic microflora on contact angles. Plant Cell Environ 19:455–463CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Schreiber L (2005) Polar paths of diffusion across plant cuticles: new evidence for an old hypothesis. Ann Bot 95:1069–1073CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  57. Schreiber L (2006) Review of sorption and diffusion of lipophilic molecules in cuticular waxes and the effects of accelerators on solute mobilities. J Exp Bot 57:2515–2523CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Schreiber L, Krimm U, Knoll D, Sayed M, Auling G, Kroppenstedt RM (2005) Plant-microbe interactions: identification of epiphytic bacteria and their ability to alter leaf surface permeability. New Phytol 166:589–594CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Schreiber L, Riederer M (1996) Ecophysiology of cuticular transpiration: comparative investigation of cuticular water permeability of plant species from different habitats. Oecologia 107:426–432CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Schreiber L, Schönherr J (1993) Mobilities of organic compounds in reconstituted cuticular wax of barley leaves: determination of diffusion coefficients. Pestic Sci 38:353–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schreiber L, Schönherr J (2009) Water and solute permeability of plant cuticles. Springer, HeidelbergGoogle Scholar
  62. Segado P, Dominguez E, Heredia A (2016) Ultrastructure of the epidermal cell wall and cuticle of tomato fruit (Solanum lycopersicum L.) during development. Plant Physiol 170:935–946CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Shi T, Simanova E, Schönherr J, Schreiber L (2005) Effects of accelerators on mobility of 14C-2,4-dichlorophenoxy butyric acid in plant cuticles depends on type and concentration of accelerator. J Agric Food Chem 53:2207–2212CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Ueda H, Mitsuhara I, Tabata J, Kugimiya S, Watanabe T, Suzuki K, Yoshida S, Kitamoto H (2015) Extracellular esterases of phylloplane yeast Pseudozyma antarctica induce defect on cuticle layer structure and water-holding ability of plant leaves. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 99:6405–6415CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Villena JF, Dominguez E, Stewart D, Heredia A (1999) Characterization and biosynthesis of non-degradable polymers in plant cuticles. Planta 208:181–187CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. Vorholt JA (2012) Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol 10:828–840CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Wang ZH, Guhling O, Yao RN, Li FL, Yeats TH, Rose JKC, Jetter R (2011) Two oxidosqualene cyclases responsible for biosynthesis of tomato fruit cuticular triterpenoids. Plant Physiol 155:540–552CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Wang Y, Wang JH, Chai GQ, Li CL, Hu YG, Chen XH, Wang ZH (2015) Developmental changes in composition and morphology of cuticular waxes on leaves and spikes of glossy and glaucous wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). PLoS One 10(11):e0143671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Whipps JM, Hand P, Pink D, Bending GD (2008) Phyllosphere microbiology with special reference to diversity and plant genotype. J Appl Microbiol 105:1744–1755CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Zabka V, Stangl M, Bringmann G, Vogg G, Riederer M, Hildebrandt U (2008) Host surface properties affect prepenetration processes in the barley powdery mildew fungus. New Phytol 177:251–263PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. Zeisler V, Schreiber L (2016) Epicuticular wax on cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus) leaves does not constitute the cuticular transpiration barrier. Planta 243:65–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Viktoria Valeska Zeisler-Diehl
    • 1
  • Wilhelm Barthlott
    • 2
  • Lukas Schreiber
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Institute of Cellular and Molecular Botany (IZMB)University of BonnBonnGermany
  2. 2.Nees Institut for Biodiversity of PlantsUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations