| Literature DB >> 23964283 |
Roee Shavit1, Maya Ofek-Lalzar, Saul Burdman, Shai Morin.
Abstract
In their natural environment, plants experience multiple biotic interactions and respond to this complexity in an integrated manner. Therefore, plant responses to herbivory are flexible and depend on the context and complexity in which they occur. For example, plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) can enhance plant growth and induce resistance against microbial pathogens and herbivorous insects by a phenomenon termed induced systemic resistance (ISR). In the present study, we investigated the effect of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) pre-inoculation with the PGPR Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r, on the performance of the generalist phloem-feeding insect Bemisia tabaci. Based on the ability of P. fluorescens WCS417r to prime for ISR against generalists chewing insects and necrotrophic pathogens, we hypothesized that pre-inoculated plants will strongly resist B. tabaci infestation. In contrast, we discovered that the pre-inoculation treatment increased the tomato plant suitability for B. tabaci which was emphasized both by faster developmental rate and higher survivability of nymph stages on pre-inoculated plants. Our molecular and chemical analyses suggested that the phenomenon is likely to be related to: (I) the ability of the bacteria to reduce the activity of the plant induced defense systems; (II) a possible manipulation by P. fluorescens of the plant quality (in terms of suitability for B. tabaci) through an indirect effect on the rhizosphere bacterial community. The contribution of our study to the pattern proposed for other belowground rhizobacteria and mycorrhizal fungi and aboveground generalist phloem-feeders is discussed.Entities:
Keywords: Bemisia tabaci; generalist phloem-feeders; induced systemic resistance; plant growth promoting rizhobacteria; plant signaling
Year: 2013 PMID: 23964283 PMCID: PMC3741575 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00306
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
Quantitative real-time PCR (qRT-PCR) and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DDGE) list of forward (F) and reverse (R) primers and PCR product sizes.
| F | 5′-GAGTGGCTCAACGGAAAGCA-3′ | 80 | |
| R | 5′-CCAACAGCCTCTGCCTTCTTA-3′ | ||
| F | 5′-TTCAATTTGGCGTCGGTGGC-3′ | 95 | |
| R | 5′-TCACTCTCTCCTTCACATAC-3′ | ||
| F | 5′-CCAGTGGAAGATGATGGAGA-3′ | 221 | |
| R | 5′-GGGAGTAACTCGAACAATGC-3′ | ||
| F | 5′-CGAGATGGTGGGTACAGAAGAAC- 3′ | 108 | |
| R | 5′-CAAGATTGGAAGTGCCAGTAACAG G-3′ | ||
| F | 5′-AAACGGTGAATGCCCTGGTTCA-3′ | 102 | |
| R | 5′-AGGACCACATGGACCGTGATTA-3′ | ||
| F | GC clamp-5′-AACGCGAAGAACCTTAC-3′ | ~450 | |
| R | 5′-CGGTGTGTACAAGGCCCGGGAACG-3′ |
Figure 1Reproductive performance of . (A) The proportion of live nymphs from the total number of eggs oviposited. (B) The proportion of progeny that had emerged as adults by day 17. (C) The mean number of eggs oviposited by 12 females during 24 h. Asterisks indicate significant differences (P ≤ 0.05). Errors bars represent standard error of the means (n = ~30). N.S. = Not significant.
ANOVA results (.
| “Bacteria” | 3.55 (1, 82) | 0.063 | 4.40 (1, 80) | 0.039* | 4.57 (1, 73) | 0.036* | 4.37 (1, 81) | 0.040* |
| “Time” | 5.79 (2, 82) | 0.004* | 3.45 (2, 80) | 0.036* | 16.53 (2, 73) | <0.0001* | 8.53 (2, 81) | 0.0004* |
| “Insect Infestation” | 0.050 (1, 82) | 0.824 | 7.47* (1, 80) | 0.008* | 2.63 (1, 73) | 0.110 | 1.04 (1, 81) | 0.311 |
See Material and Methods for detailed description of applied model. Asterisks indicate statistical significance (P ≤ 0.05).
Transcriptional profiles of four gene markers: .
Samples were collected at four time points: “day 0” (prior to B. tabaci infestation and egglaying), “day 1” (the effect of 24 h of adults' infestation and egglaying), “day 6” (the beginning of egg hatching—minimal effect of B. tabaci infestation) and “day 12” (presence of B. tabaci 2nd and 3rd feeding nymphs—the effect of nymph infestation). Numbers indicate relative expression levels (2.
The levels of soluble carbohydrates, N (nitrogen) and C (carbon) in .
| 2.49 ± 0.15 | 6.08 ± 0.05 | 41.11 ± 0.51 | 6.76 ± 0.06 | |
| Control | 2.14 ± 0.12 | 6.27 ± 0.06 | 42.82 ± 0.54 | 6.83 ± 0.12 |
| 0.047 | 0.035 | 0.023 | 0.60 | |
FW, fresh weight; DW, dry weight; SE, standard error. Differences were tested for significance by a Two-Way ANOVA II model. Statistical significance was assumed at P ≤ 0.05.
The N (nitrogen), and C (carbon) contents of .
| 9.60 ± 0.15 | 53.05 ± 0.37 | 5.53 ± 0.07 | |
| Control | 9.34 ± 0.03 | 52.88 ± 0.53 | 5.66 ± 0.06 |
| 0.20 | 0.52 | 0.13 | |
DW, dry weight; SE, standard error. Differences were tested for significance by a Two-Way ANOVA II model. Statistical significance was assumed at P = 0.05.
Figure 2Cluster analysis of tomato rhizosphere bacterial community patterns. DGGE patterns were aligned using Fingerprinting® II software and the samples' densitometric curves were extracted. Unweighted pair-group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) algorithm was applied to a Bray-Curtis distance matrix calculated between the samples densitometric curves. Numbers at the nodes represent bootstrap values performed with 10,000 replications (bootstrap values >70 are presented). P−, non-inoculated control; P+, P. fluorescens-inoculated; B+, B. tabaci-infested plants; B−, uninfested control; “day 0,” prior to infestation; “day 12,” 12 days after infestation. S, sample.