| Literature DB >> 28303127 |
Momota Potshangbam1, S Indira Devi1, Dinabandhu Sahoo1, Gary A Strobel2.
Abstract
In a natural ecosystem, the plant is in a symbiotic relationship with beneficial endophytes contributing huge impact on its host plant. Therefore, exploring beneficial endophytes and understanding its interaction is a prospective area of research. The present work aims to characterize the fungal endophytic communities associated with healthy maize and rice plants and to study the deterministic factors influencing plant growth and biocontrol properties against phytopathogens, viz, Pythium ultimum, Sclerotium oryzae, Rhizoctonia solani, and Pyricularia oryzae. A total of 123 endophytic fungi was isolated using the culture-dependent approach from different tissue parts of the plant. Most dominating fungal endophyte associated with both the crops belong to genus Fusarium, Sarocladium, Aspergillus, and Penicillium and their occurrence was not tissue specific. The isolates were screened for in vitro plant growth promotion, stress tolerance, disease suppressive mechanisms and based on the results, each culture from both the cereal crops was selected for further study. Acremonium sp. (ENF 31) and Penicillium simplicisssum (ENF22), isolated from maize and rice respectively could potentially inhibit the growth of all the tested pathogens with 46.47 ± 0.16 mm to 60.09 ± 0.04 mm range zone of inhibition for ENF31 and 35.48 ± 0.14 to 62.29 ± 0.15 mm for ENF22. Both significantly produce the defensive enzymes, ENF31 could tolerate a wide range of pH from 2 to 12, very important criteria, for studying plant growth in different soil types, especially acidic as it is widely prevalent here, making more land unsuitable for cultivation. ENF22 grows in pH range 3-12, with 10% salt tolerating ability, another factor of consideration. Study of root colonization during 7th to 30th days of growth phase reveals that ENF31 could colonize pleasantly in rice, though a maize origin, ranging from 1.02 to 1.21 log10 CFU/g root and in maize, it steadily colonizes ranging from 0.95 to 1.18 log10 CFU, while ENF22 could colonize from 0.98 to 1.24 Log10CFU/g root in rice and 1.01 to 1.24Log10CFU/g root in maize, just the reverse observed in Acremonium sp. Therefore, both the organism has the potency of a promising Bio-resource agent, that we must definitely explore to fill the gap in the agriculture industry.Entities:
Keywords: biocontrol agent; fungal endophyte; phytopathogens; plant growth; stress tolerance
Year: 2017 PMID: 28303127 PMCID: PMC5332368 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.00325
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Figure 1Relative abundance of endophytic fungal isolates of maize and rice from different locations of Manipur. The bars represents 11 locations of sample collection sites. Error bar represents Standard error.
Endophytic fungi isolated from apparently healthy tissues of rice and maize plants.
| 1 | IBSD-ENF-1 | Maize root | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 2 | IBSD-ENF-2 | Maize root | Churachandpur | 98 | ||
| 3 | IBSD-ENF-3 | Maize stem | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 4 | IBSD-ENF-4 | Maize root | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 5 | IBSD-ENF-5 | Maize stem | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 6 | IBSD-ENF-6 | Maize stem | Churachandpur | 99 | ||
| 7 | IBSD-ENF-7 | Maize node | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 8 | IBSD-ENF-8 | Maize leaf | Churachandpur | 100 | ||
| 9 | IBSD-ENF-9 | Maize leaf | Thamlakkhuren | 95 | ||
| 10 | IBSD-ENF-10 | Maize stem | Moirang Kampu | 100 | ||
| 11 | IBSD-ENF-11 | Maize root | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 12 | IBSD-ENF-12 | Maize root | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 13 | IBSD-ENF-13 | Maize root | Moirang Kampu | 100 | ||
| 14 | IBSD-ENF-14 | Maize stem | Thoubal | 100 | ||
| 15 | IBSD-ENF-15 | Maize root | Thoubal | 100 | ||
| 16 | IBSD-ENF-16 | Maize root | Thoubal | 100 | ||
| 17 | IBSD-ENF-17 | Rice stem | Thoubal | 100 | ||
| 18 | IBSD-ENF-18 | Rice stem | Thoubal | 99 | ||
| 19 | IBSD-ENF-19 | Maize leaf | Andro | 100 | ||
| 20 | IBSD-ENF-20 | Maize root | Andro | 100 | ||
| 21 | IBSD-ENF-21 | Maize root | Andro | 99 | ||
| 22 | IBSD-ENF-22 | Rice root | Keinou | 100 | ||
| 23 | IBSD-ENF-23 | Rice root | Keinou | 100 | ||
| 24 | IBSD-ENF-24 | Maize leaf | Thoubal | 100 | ||
| 25 | IBSD-ENF-25 | Rice stem | Keinou | 100 | ||
| 26 | IBSD-ENF-26 | Maize root | Moirang Kampu | 100 | ||
| 27 | IBSD-ENF-27 | Maize leaf | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 28 | IBSD-ENF-28 | Maize root | Kakching | 95 | ||
| 29 | IBSD-ENF-29 | Maize root | Thamlakkhuren | 99 | ||
| 30 | IBSD-ENF-30 | Maize root | Imphal East | 99 | ||
| 31 | IBSD-ENF-31 | Maize leaf | Wabagai | 100 | ||
| 32 | IBSD-ENF-32 | Maize leaf | Thamlakkhuren | 100 | ||
| 33 | IBSD-ENF-33 | Maize stem | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 34 | IBSD-ENF-34 | Maize root | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 35 | IBSD-ENF-35 | Maize leaf | Imphal East | 100 | ||
| 36 | IBSD-ENF-36 | Maize stem | Wabagai | 99 | ||
| 37 | IBSD-ENF-37 | Maize stem | Wabagai | 100 | ||
| 38 | IBSD-ENF-38 | Maize root | Bishnupur | 100 | ||
| 39 | IBSD-ENF-39 | Maize leaf | Pallel | 99 | ||
| 40 | IBSD-ENF-40 | Maize leaf | Wabagai | 100 | ||
| 41 | IBSD-ENF-41 | Maize node | Imphal east | 97 | ||
| 42 | IBSD-ENF-42 | Maize root | Imphal east | 99 | ||
| 43 | IBSD-ENF-43 | Maize root | Imphal east | 100 | ||
| 44 | IBSD-ENF-44 | Maize leaf | Imphal east | 87 | ||
| 45 | IBSD-ENF-45 | Maize stem | Imphal east | 96 | ||
| 46 | IBSD-ENF-46 | Maize root | Imphal east | 100 | ||
| 47 | IBSD-ENF-47 | Maize root | Imphal east | 100 | ||
| 48 | IBSD-ENF-48 | Maize stem | Imphal east | 99 | ||
| 49 | IBSD-ENF-49 | Rice leaf | Thamlakkhuren | 99 | ||
| 50 | IBSD-ENF-50 | Maize stem | Imphal east | 100 | ||
| 51 | IBSD-ENF-51 | Maize stem | Bishnupur | 100 | ||
| 52 | IBSD-ENF-52 | Maize leaf | Bishnupur | 100 | ||
| 53 | IBSD-ENF-53 | Maize leaf | Pallel | 99 | ||
| 54 | IBSD-ENF-54 | Maize leaf | Kakching | 99 | ||
| 55 | IBSD-ENF-55 | Maize leaf | Kakching | 99 |
Figure 2UPGMA method phylogenetic tree based on rDNA ITS sequences of fungal endophytic isolates obtained from tissue sections of maize and rice. The percentage of replicate in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (1,000) is shown next to the branches.
Hydrolytic enzyme activitity and stress tolerance of endophytic fungal isolates.
| ENF-13 | − | 3.32 ± 0.014 | 2.86 ± 0.031 | − | − | − | 1.14 ± 0.01 | − | + | − | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | − | - | + | + |
| ENF-27 | − | 3.35 ± 0.027 | 2.97 ± 0.008 | − | − | − | − | − | + | − | +++ | + | +++ | + | − | − | + | − |
| ENF-34 | − | 1.22 ± 0.018 | 1.23 ± 0.066 | − | 3.51 ± 0.01 | 1.16 ± 0.02 | 3.35 ± 0.027 | + | + | − | +++ | +++ | +++ | − | − | − | + | − |
| ENF-22 | 1.24 ± 0.02 | 1.15 ± 0.02 | 1.88 ± 0.057 | 1.16 ± 0.026 | 3.12 ± 0.01 | 1.70 ± 0.01 | 2.93 ± 0.031 | − | + | ++ | ++ | ++ | +++ | ++ | − | ± | + | + |
| ENF-44 | 1.33 ± 0.015 | 2.01 ± 0.06 | 1.44 ± 0.01 | − | 1.73 ± 0.065 | 2.56 ± 0.066 | − | − | + | − | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | − | − | + | + |
| ENF-53 | 2.13 ± 0.02 | 1.12 ± 0.023 | 1.17 ± 0.089 | 1.13 ± 0.003 | 1.32 ± 0.014 | 1.11 ± 0.6 | 1.82 ± 0.012 | − | + | − | +++ | − | + | + | − | − | + | − |
| ENF-16 | − | 3.12 ± 0.029 | 2.31 ± 0.026 | − | 4.19 ± 0.012 | 1.12 ± 0.057 | 1.89 ± 0.88 | + | + | − | +++ | ++ | ++ | + | − | − | − | − |
| ENF-32 | 1.86 ± 0.07 | 2.2 ± 0.01 | − | 1.12 ± 0.02 | 1.85 ± 0.076 | 1.66 ± 0.1 | 2.53 ± 0.02 | − | + | − | +++ | +++ | +++ | ++ | − | − | + | − |
| ENF-33 | − | 2.45 ± 0.06 | 2.13 ± 0.014 | − | − | 2.6 ± 0.057 | 1.11 ± 0.026 | − | + | − | +++ | − | +++ | − | + | − | − | − |
| ENF-36 | − | 1.20 ± 0.014 | 1.24 ± 0.088 | 1.10 ± 0.01 | 4.12 ± 0.063 | 3.18 ± 0.076 | 4.04 ± 0.07 | − | + | − | +++ | +++ | ++ | ++ | − | − | + | + |
| ENF-45 | − | 1.11 ± 0.055 | 1.42 ± 0.02 | 1.48 ± 0.6 | 1.55 ± 0.028 | 3.12 ± 0.003 | 3.52 ± 0.026 | − | + | − | +++ | +++ | ++ | − | − | − | + | − |
| ENF-49 | 1.62 ± 0.012 | 1.13 ± 0.089 | 0.94 ± 0.003 | 1.19 ± 0.017 | 1.17 ± 0.026 | 1.13 ± 0.046 | 3.43 ± 0.011 | − | + | + | +++ | ++ | ++ | + | − | − | + | + |
| ENF-41 | 1.55 ± 0.031 | 3.55 ± 0.065 | 1.22 ± 0.046 | 2.56 ± 0.065 | 2.38 ± 0.02 | 3.14 ± 0.01 | 1.72 ± 0.011 | − | ++ | + | +++ | +++ | +++ | + | − | +/− | + | − |
| ENF-31 | 1.89 ± 0.023 | 3.35 ± 0.014 | 1.65 ± 0.008 | 3.66 ± 0.01 | 4.36 ± 0.03 | 3.95 ± 0.029 | 2.28 ± 0.014 | − | + | − | ++ | ++ | ++ | + | + | − | − | − |
| ENF-5 | − | 1.76 ± 0.076 | 1.10 ± 0.028 | 1.11 ± 0.076 | 2.26 ± 0.01 | 3.28 ± 0.6 | 1.19 ± 0.012 | − | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | ++ | − | − | + | + |
Result: Significant difference among biochemical assays of the isolates (one−way ANOVA followed by Fisher's protected least significant difference (LSD) test, P < 0.05). Growth on nfb (Nitrogen free basal media) and stress tolerance (−, no activity; ±, tinge growth+, moderate activity;++, high activity;+++, very high activity)
Figure 3Plates showing properties of enzyme assays and antagonism activity of the fungal endophytic isolates. Antagonism toward: PU, Pythium ultimum; SO, Sclerotium oryzae; RS, Rhizoctonia solani; PO, Pyricularia oryzae.
Figure 4Antagonistic activity of the endophytic fungal isolates. The bars represent endophytic fungal isolates. Color indicates the phytopathogens: yellow - Pyricularia oryzae, red- Sclerotium oryzae, green- Pythium ultimum and purple- Rhizoctonia solani. Error bar represents Standard error.
Endophytic fungal colonies isolated from the roots of rice and maize plants.
| E1 | 9.66 ± 0.88 | 17.66 ± 0.88 | 10.33 ± 0.88 | 17.66 ± 1.20 |
| E2 | 10.66 ± 0.88 | 16.33 ± 0.88 | 9 ± 1.15 | 15.33 ± 0.88 |
| E1+RS | 10.66 ± 1.20 | 17 ± 0.57 | 9.66 ± 1.45 | 14 ± 1.15 |
| E1+SO | 9.66 ± 0.88 | 15 ± 1.52 | 12 ± 0.577 | 13.66 ± 1.20 |
| E2+RS | 7.66 ± 1.20 | 13.33 ± 1.45 | 8.33 ± 0.88 | 14.66 ± 2.02 |
| E2+SO | 8 ± 1.15 | 12.33 ± 1.20 | 10 ± 1.73 | 15.66 ± 1.76 |
The data represent mean values and standard error of three replicas per treatment, the values in CFUg.
.
Figure 5Endophytic fungal assemblages of Maize and Rice.