| Literature DB >> 32139754 |
Miguel Rodríguez1, Marta Torres1,2,3, Lydia Blanco1, Victoria Béjar1,2, Inmaculada Sampedro4, Inmaculada Llamas5,6.
Abstract
Given the major threat of phytopathogenic bacteria to food production and ecosystem stability worldwide, novel alternatives to conventional chemicals-based agricultural practices are needed to combat these bacteria. The objective of this study is to evaluate the ability of Pseudomonas segetis strain P6, which was isolated from the Salicornia europaea rhizosphere, to act as a potential biocontrol agent given its plant growth-promoting (PGP) and quorum quenching (QQ) activities. Seed biopriming and in vivo assays of tomato plants inoculated with strain P6 resulted in an increase in seedling height and weight. We detected QQ activity, involving enzymatic degradation of signal molecules in quorum sensing communication systems, against a broad range of N-acylhomoserine lactones (AHLs). HPLC-MRM data and phylogenetic analysis indicated that the QQ enzyme was an acylase. The QQ activity of strain P6 reduced soft rot symptoms caused by Dickeya solani, Pectobacterium atrosepticum and P. carotovorum on potato and carrot. In vivo assays showed that the PGP and QQ activities of strain P6 protect tomato plants against Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato, indicating that strain P6 could have biotechnological applications. To our knowledge, this is the first report to show PGP and QQ activities in an indigenous Pseudomonas strain from Salicornia plants.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32139754 PMCID: PMC7058018 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-61084-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Determination of remaining C10-HSL by HPLC-MRM after 24 h of incubation with P. segetis P6. Tryptic soy broth (TSB) was used as a negative control. Initial AHL concentration was 10 µM.
Figure 2Virulence assay in potato tuber and carrot slices. (a) Detection of AHLs in the cultures and co-cultures of P. segetis P6 and the pathogens Dickeya solani (1), Pectobacterium atrosepticum (2) and P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum (3) using the biosensor Agrobacterium tumefaciens NTL4. (b) Virulence and maceration of cultures and co-cultures of strain P6 and the different pathogens on the surface of potato and carrot slices after 2 days of incubation. Sterile water was used as a negative control.
Figure 3Infection assay in tomato plants treated with cultures and co-cultures of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and P. segetis P6. (a) Total percentage of healthy, dead, necrotic and chlorotic leaves after each treatment. (b) Infection symptoms on leaves after treatment.
Dry weight of tomato plants after treatment with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and P. segetis P6.
| Negative control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Root dry weight (mg) | 6.38 ± 0.55a | 13.78 ± 5.53b | 4.15 ± 0.46a | 4.76 ± 1.47a |
| Shoot dry weight (mg) | 11.82 ± 1.77a | 19.82 ± 6.49b | 3.25 ± 0.64c | 8.47 ± 1.60a |
| Total dry weight (mg) | 18.20 ± 1.79a | 33.60 ± 11.86b | 7.40 ± 0.69c | 13.23 ± 3.00c |
Data are expressed as mean values and standard deviation. Values within a line followed by different letters indicate significant difference (P ≤ 0.05).
Chlorophyll content of fresh shoots after treatment with Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato and Pseudomonas segetis P6.
| Parameter | Negative control | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arnon formula | Chlorophyll | 0.52 ± 0.14 | 0.63 ± 0.13 | 0.41 ± 0.08 | 0.57 ± 0.12 |
| Chlorophyll | 0.20 ± 0.05 | 0.27 ± 0.05 | 0.17 ± 0.03 | 0.23 ± 0.12 | |
| Total chlorophyll (mg g−1) | 0.72 ± 0.19 | 0.91 ± 0.19 | 0.58 ± 0.12 | 0.80 ± 0.42 | |
| Lichtenthaler formula | Chlorophyll | 0.50 ± 0.13 | 0.60 ± 0.13 | 0.39 ± 0.08 | 0.55 ± 0.29 |
| Chlorophyll | 0.14 ± 0.03 | 0.19 ± 0.04 | 0.12 ± 0.02 | 0.16 ± 0.08 | |
| Total chlorophyll (mg g−1) | 0.64 ± 0.16 | 0.79 ± 0.16 | 0.51 ± 0.10 | 0.70 ± 0.37 |
Measurements were carried out using the Arnon and Lichtenthaler methods. Data are expressed as mean values and standard deviation.
Figure 4Observation by microscopy of chlorophyll and callose deposits in tomato leaves. Differential interference contrast (DIC) micrographs: (a–d) and (i–l). Fluorescence micrographs: (e–h) and (m–p). Each DIC micrograph shows tissue morphology of the corresponding fluorescence micrograph: (a–e, b–f, c–g, d–h, i–m, j–n, k–o and l–p). All micrographs from each determination were taken at the same magnification, exposure time, gamma and gain settings. Fluorescence micrographs were digitally colored.