Abstract
Modern plant breeding can no longer afford to ignore the interaction between plants and microbial key players. Increasing evidence suggests (i) that the expression of many plant traits (such as nutrient use efficiency or tolerances against biotic and abiotic stresses) is mediated by beneficial microorganisms and (ii) that there is an exploitable genetic base for the regulation of symbiotic relationships. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) play a key role in many of these trait expressions. While much is known about their ability to mobilise nutrients (especially phosphorus), the complex mechanisms of AMF-mediated disease resistance have only started to become apparent within the past decade. Besides competition for root space and resources, AMF also have the ability to induce plant defence mechanisms. Jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) appear to be the key phytohormones that regulate relevant signalling pathways. The resulting activation of defence-related compounds can occur locally or systemically, constitutively or primed. Genotype-dependent plant reactions have been demonstrated for mycorrhizal responsiveness (when based on biomass), but not much is known when it comes to genotypic variation for AMF-mediated disease resistance. However, a few studies have provided first valuable insights. It is proposed to (i) include disease resistance as a factor to expand the term mycorrhizal responsiveness and (ii) make use of an indicator called “mycorrhiza use efficiency” as an additional measure to determine an optimum cost-benefit ratio of the mycorrhiza symbiosis. In order to detect differences in the efficiency, genotype selection needs to occur in environments that do not suppress the plant–microbe interaction. Thus, the value of organic breeding programmes is highlighted.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Many traits that breeders use as selection criteria are not mere plant but system traits involving the complex plant-associated microbial community (Berendsen et al. 2012; Philippot et al. 2013; Vandenkoornhuyse et al. 2015; Pieterse et al. 2016). Such system traits include nutrient use efficiency, drought and salt tolerance and disease resistance. When breeders select for these traits, they usually focus on their phenotypic expression without paying much attention to the role of associated microbes. However, it is well documented nowadays that microbes not only influence but are also part of that trait expression. For instance, the hyphal network of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) can access and mobilise plant unavailable phosphorus (P) and, as a result, improve the plant’s P acquisition efficiency and, thus, increase the ability of the plant to use soil P in the production of biomass or yield (Sawers et al. 2010; Lehmann et al. 2012). Plants have the capacity to shape the composition and alter the activity of their associated microbes, e.g. via the exudation of flavonoids and other signalling compounds (Rengel 2002). If breeders were given tools to determine the influence of microbes on such system traits during the selection process, hidden capacities for the expression and also the stability of these traits could be revealed.
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are of prime importance to most plants and are the best studied plant symbionts. Besides nutrient mobilisation (mainly phosphorus and zinc), benefits of mycorrhiza include improved tolerance against abiotic (mainly drought and salt) and biotic stresses (mainly soil-borne pathogens) (Azcón-Aguilar and Barea 1996; Parniske 2008). This mini-review will take the mycorrhiza symbiosis as a case study keeping in mind that many of the concepts mentioned here are also transferable to other symbiotic root endophytes such as rhizobia. We will summarise novel insights on a less known trait called AMF-mediated disease resistance and briefly explain the underlying mechanisms. With the demonstration of genotypic variation in mycorrhizal responsiveness (ability of the plant to respond to AMF) and first attempts to identify quantitative trait loci (QTL), we will bring the benefits of plant–microbe interactions (with a focus on improved disease resistance) into the context of plant breeding. We will highlight additional measures to improve the assessment of the AMF symbiosis and conclude with a perspective on how to make better use of plant–microbe interactions in breeding programmes.
Mycorrhiza-mediated disease resistance
Plants possess innate mechanisms to protect themselves against pathogens (Dangl and Jones 2001; Boller and He 2009; Thomma et al. 2011). At first, the plant recognises non-specific molecules such as flagellin, lipopolysaccharides or peptidoglycans, termed microbe-associated molecular patterns (MAMP, or PAMP in the case of pathogens). This recognition can activate responses in the host that lead to PAMP-triggered immunity (PTI). In return, pathogens can interfere with these responses by secreting effector proteins causing effector-triggered susceptibility (ETS). For instance, ETS has been demonstrated for pea. Pea plants reacted against Fusarium solani (Delserone et al. 1999) and Didymella pinodes (Yamada et al. 1989) with the accumulation of the phytoalexin pisatin. In both cases, the pathogen was shown to detoxify the phytoalexin, leading to a successful infection. In some cases, the plant can also recognise pathogen effectors and, in response, activate defence mechanisms that are quicker and stronger than those in PTI, resulting in effector-triggered immunity as shown for various Arabidopsis-pathogen systems (reviewed in Glazebrook 2005).
Plant defences can also be mediated by symbiotic root endophytes such as Glomeromycota, Rhizobium, Trichoderma or Pseudomonas spp. (Rhijn and Vanderleyden 1995; Harman et al. 2004; Parniske 2008; Raaijmakers et al. 2009; Gianinazzi et al. 2010). Plants benefit from root endophytes that extend their zone of activity beyond the rhizosphere (Feddermann et al. 2010; Hohmann et al. 2011, 2012). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi are such root endophytes that produce an extensive hyphal network. As one of the primary mutualistic plant–microbe symbioses, they have been shown to increase resistance against a wide range of fungal and bacterial pathogens (Azcón-Aguilar and Barea 1996; Whipps 2004). For instance, certain AMF such as Funneliformis mosseae (formerly known as Glomus mosseae) and Rhizophagus irregularis (formerly known as G. intraradices) were shown to alleviate symptoms of pea root rot caused by Aphanomyces euteiches (Bodker et al. 1998; Slezack et al. 1999) and Pythium ultimum (Merx 2004). Sikes (2010) reported that AMF species from the family Glomeraceae were effective at reducing F. oxysporum pathogen abundance in Setaria glauca while species from the Gigasporaceae were not. Recently, an increasing number of studies have also reported mycorrhizal plants to be more resistant against foliar pathogens such as Erysiphe pisi in pea (Singh et al. 2002), Magnaporthe oryzae in rice (Campos-Soriano et al. 2012), Alternaria solani in tomato (Fritz et al. 2006; de la Noval et al. 2007) and Botrytis cinerea in roses and tomato (Møller et al. 2009; Pozo et al. 2010).
Higher tolerance against diseases (as well as increased plant growth and tolerance against abiotic stresses) were first exclusively attributed to an improved nutrient status (predominantly phosphorus) of the plant (Linderman 1994). More recent mineral supply experiments demonstrated that the beneficial effects cannot be solely explained by an improved nutrient uptake (Fritz et al. 2006; Liu et al. 2007). It became apparent that plants have the ability to regulate the AMF symbiosis. This autoregulative process was shown to prevent fungal pathogens from attacking roots (Vierheilig et al. 2008). In addition, AMF are able to directly reduce fungal infections, e.g., by competition for root space and resources (Azcón-Aguilar et al. 2002; Bødker et al. 2002; Harrier and Watson 2004; Wehner et al. 2010). An increasing number of studies also provide evidence of induced resistance mechanisms (Hause et al. 2007; Gutjahr and Paszkowski 2009; Jung et al. 2012). Mycorrhizal fungi initially trigger plant defence mechanisms similar to a biotrophic pathogen, but then modulate plant responses for a successful colonisation (Paszkowski 2006). Pozo and Azcón-Aguilar (2007) proposed that these modulations precondition the plant and, therefore, efficiently activate plant defences upon pathogen attack. For instance, mycorrhizal plants showed enhanced levels of defence-related compounds, i.e. phenolics (López-Ráez et al. 2010a, b) and β-1,3-glucanase in tomato (Pozo et al. 1999), and chitinolytic enzymes in carrot (Benhamou et al. 1994) and pea (Slezack et al. 2000). Pozo et al. (1999) also showed evidence of priming reactions where different β-1,3-glucanase isoforms were upregulated in mycorrhizal tomato plants only in the presence of the pathogen. However, not much is known about the systemic protection by AMF. A systemic upregulation of pathogenesis-related protein 1a and β-1,3-glucanase was observed in the entire root system of partly mycorrhized tomato plants using split-root systems (Cordier et al. 1998; Pozo et al. 2002). In addition, Fiorilli et al. (2009) reported AMF-mediated changes in the expression of defence-related genes in the shoots. Other studies mainly found transcriptional reprogramming of defence-related genes in roots (e.g. coding for chitinases, glucanases or phenylalanine ammonia-lyase) in tomato (Fiorilli et al. 2009; Lopez-Raez et al. 2010), rice (Campos-Soriano et al. 2012), and legume species including barrel medic (Medicago truncatula; Liu et al. 2007), soybean (Gao et al. 2012) and pea (Ruiz-Lozano et al. 1999).
Defence-related compounds are regulated by phytohormones (Pieterse et al. 2009). Salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) are key regulators of the defence mechanisms against pathogens. Salicylic acid is known to activate responses against biotrophic pathogens (Glazebrook 2005). It was also shown that AMF (being biotrophic) enhance levels of endogenous SA, but the initial increase is downregulated allowing the establishment of the symbiosis. Plant responses to necrotrophic pathogens are generally controlled by JA and ET pathways. Microbe-induced resistance is often regulated by the JA-pathway (Pozo et al. 2005; Van der Ent et al. 2009) and there have now been strong indications of JA to be involved in AMF-mediated resistance and priming (reviewed in Jung et al. 2012). Other phytohormones have been shown to regulate the formation of mycorrhizae. The full establishment of mycorrhizae is a prerequisite for symbiotic effects including mycorrhiza-mediated disease resistance (Slezack et al. 2000). For instance, a deficiency of abscisic acid (ABA) was shown to negatively influence mycorrhizal development and the functionality of arbuscules (Herrera-Medina et al. 2008; Garrido et al. 2010), possibly due to the upregulation of defence-related genes (Garrido et al. 2010). Strigolactones (SL) are recently identified phytohormones that stimulate spore germination and hyphal branching of AMF, but also trigger seed germination of parasitic plants (Gomez-Roldan et al. 2008; Foo and Reid 2012). Once mycorrhizae are established, SL levels are downregulated (Lendzemo et al. 2007; López-Ráez et al. 2011). Studies of an involvement of the phytohormone indole-acetic acid (IAA) have led to contradictory results (reviewed by Foo et al. 2013). For ectomycorrhizal fungi, Splivallo et al. (2009) found that IAA and ET play a key role as signal molecules in the fungus-plant interaction inducing alterations in root morphology. To some extent, there seems to be an indirect effect of IAA on mycorrhizal formation by regulating SL levels (Foo et al. 2013).
In conclusion, it becomes apparent that AMF-mediated disease resistance is regulated both ways: AMF influence the defence mechanisms of the plant and the plant regulates the formation of mycorrhizae, which is a prerequisite for symbiotic effects. Further, defence responses can be upregulated locally in mycorrhizal roots or systemically within the entire plant and activated either constitutively or primed upon pathogen attack (Fig. 1). Discovering the balance of the SA and JA signalling pathways and their systemic regulation and regulatory effects on defence-related compounds will substantially improve our understanding of the AMF-plant interactions in general and AMF-mediated defence responses in particular.
Genotypic variation in mycorrhizal responsiveness
Plants have the ability to influence the microbial structure in the rhizosphere. It has been demonstrated that not only different plant species, but also different genotypes within the same species can modify the microbial community in the rhizosphere, e.g. by exudation of compounds that specifically stimulate or suppress particular pathogenic or beneficial microbes (Viebahn et al. 2005; Berg et al. 2006; Garbeva et al. 2007; Micallef et al. 2009; Aira et al. 2010; Doornbos et al. 2011; Peiffer et al. 2013). For instance, wheat cultivars have been found to differ in their ability to attract naturally occurring 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol-producing Pseudomonas spp. (Gu and Mazzola 2003; Meyer et al. 2010). The amount of antibiotics produced by these biocontrol strains also differed among the cultivars’ rhizospheres. The ability of plants to respond to AMF can vary widely between plant species and among genotypes (Parke and Kaeppler 2000; Sawers et al. 2010). Genotypic differences in the response to AMF (based on biomass) have been observed in various crops, e.g., wheat cultivars (Hetrick et al. 1993), maize inbred lines (Kaeppler et al. 2000; An et al. 2009) and onion cultivars (Powell et al. 1982; Tawaraya et al. 2001; Galván et al. 2011). Such differences in mycorrhizal responsiveness (MR) indicate a genetic basis for the plant-AMF interaction. There have also been first attempts to identify QTL that govern MR for onion (Galván et al. 2011) and maize (Kaeppler et al. 2000).
Little is known about the genotypic variation in AMF-mediated disease resistance. Mark and Cassells (1996) showed a genotype-dependent interaction between the AM-fungus Glomus fistulosum and Phytophthora fragariae (the causal agent of red stele disease) in a population of outbreeding wild strawberry. Another study revealed cultivar-specific bioprotective effects by AMF when different tomato cultivars were infected with Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici (Steinkellner et al. 2012). The mechanisms responsible for genotypic variation in AMF-mediated disease resistance are not yet understood and need further investigation in order to fully exploit the benefits of this particular plant–microbe interaction. Promising results were shown in other systems. For instance, Smith and Goodman (1999) were able to identify three QTL associated with disease suppression of Pythium torulosum in tomato by the rhizobacterium Bacillus cereus explaining 38% of the phenotypic variation. Worth mentioning here is also a pioneering study by Horton et al. (2014) who looked at the microbial community as a whole. They discovered QTL that govern the microbiome composition of endophytic bacteria in Arabidopsis thaliana. The above mentioned studies (and also findings from previously mentioned studies such as Hetrick et al. 1993; Kaeppler et al. 2000; Powell et al. 1982; Tawaraya et al. 2001) indicate that modern plant breeding may have selected against plant traits essential for hosting and supporting beneficial microbes. However, they also indicate the presence of genetic variation that can be exploited to enhance beneficial interactions between plants and AMF and other members of the microbial community.
Exploit the mycorrhizal symbiosis in plant breeding
The extent in which mycorrhizal strains provide benefit to the plant can range from mutualistic to parasitic effects (Klironomos 2003). In turn, plants have the ability to differentially allocate resources to beneficial symbionts (Kiers et al. 2003; Bever et al. 2009). It is assumed that plants show variation in their efficiency to regulate the symbiosis. When screening 104 pea genotypes for their ability to interact with the AM-fungus R. irregularis, mycorrhizal responsiveness (MR; expressed as the difference in shoot dry weight between mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized plants) and mycorrhization (expressed as % root length colonised (RLC) by arbuscules) ranged widely among those genotypes (Hohmann et al. 2016). However, there was no significant correlation between MR and mycorrhization (Fig. 2). The absence of a positive correlation between mycorrhization and MR (based on biomass, shoot P or grain yield) was also shown in several other studies (Krishna et al. 1985; Baon et al. 1993; Kaeppler et al. 2000; Alvey et al. 2001; Ryan et al. 2002; Ryan and Angus 2003; Hildermann et al. 2010; Smith and Smith 2012; Leiser et al. 2016). Leiser et al. (2016) concluded that there is no need to breed for enhanced AMF root colonisation to improve low-P adaptation. The authors agree that mere selection for high AMF root colonisation might not be sufficient. Even the selection for MR can lead to biased or inconclusive results. Sawers et al. (2010) discussed the issue in detail and presented an approach to identify genotypes with high MR while eliminating performance variation of non-mycorrhized plants using P dose–response experiments.
We propose an additional measure to estimate the efficiency of the plant-AMF interaction since mycorrhization and MR on their own might not indicate an optimum cost-benefit ratio of this symbiosis. A term called mycorrhiza use efficiency (MUE) gives an indication of the benefit per mycorrhizal unit. Mycorrhizal use efficiency can be defined as:
dividing mycorrhizal responsiveness (MR) by any form of quantification of mycorrhization (Myc; e.g. % root length colonised (RLC) or AMF-specific DNA copy number). Applying this to the data mentioned in Fig. 2, MUE differs significantly among the pea genotypes ranging from −61 to +159 mg shoot dry weight difference between mycorrhized and non-mycorrhized plants/% RLC by arbuscules (Fig. 3).
Any indicator to describe the mycorrhiza symbiosis that has been discussed in the past decades has their own advantages and disadvantages. While the two main advantages of MUE are its simplicity and possibility to determine how efficiently each mycorrhizal unit contributes to MR, some issues with MUE need also to be mentioned. First, MUE is biased towards low colonisation rates resulting in abnormally high MUE values. It is therefore necessary to choose a lower boundary and exclude plants that fall below this boundary level. Second, using MR in the calculation of MUE still includes variation linked to differences in plant performance in non-mycorrhized plants. In addition, we still do not know how mycorrhization or MR (when based on biomass or yield) affect other important traits elicited by AMF (e.g. disease resistance, phosphorus use efficiency (PUE) or drought tolerance). Therefore, instead of using MR, MUE could also be based on relevant dose–response indicators (e.g. the positions of the inflection points; see Sawers et al. 2010) or other important traits such as disease resistance. In fact, there are indications that the efficiency of AMF-mediated disease resistance might also be subject to variation. For instance, in the previously discussed study of Mark and Cassells (1996), there was a plant genotype-dependent mediation of disease resistance by G. fistuIosum with no apparent relationship between mycorrhizal root colonisation and AMF-mediated disease resistance.
In order to make use of MUE (or any other symbiosis indicator for that matter), it is essential to select in environments that favour the interaction between plants and AMF (reviewed Bennett et al. 2013). Organic farming systems are known to provide more favourable conditions for mycorrhiza compared with conventional farming (Hildermann et al. 2010) that usually applies fungicides and relatively high and easily available amounts of P. It was shown that organic farming systems accommodate higher AMF spore abundance and species diversity, and result in increased AMF colonisation rates and a compositional structure that is more similar to natural ecosystems (Mäder et al. 2000; Oehl et al. 2004; Galván et al. 2009). Commonly used fungicides (foliar applications as well as seed treatments) can detrimentally affect AMF spore germination, mycorrhiza formation, AMF community composition, extra-radical hyphae and/or spore production (Dodd and Jeffries 1989; Merryweather and Fitter 1996; Hernández-Dorrego and Mestre-Parés 2010; Jin et al. 2013; Buysens et al. 2015). Available soil P correlates negatively with mycorrhization and MR and, thus, affects P mobilisation by AMF (reviewed by Morgan et al. 2005). Breeding under high P conditions might therefore indirectly select for poor AMF hosts (Wissuwa et al. 2009; Lehmann et al. 2012; Bennett et al. 2013). We hypothesise that a reduced mycorrhizal dependency also affects other benefits elicited by AMF such as disease resistance. We therefore pledge to include factors other than biomass to estimate MR and MUE, i.e. disease resistance (but also PUE or drought tolerance) to obtain a comprehensive differentiation of the plant-AMF interaction. In conclusion, the selection process will have to occur under conditions (e.g. organic) that do not suppress the establishment and, thus, beneficial effects of this symbiosis, in order to identify plant genotypes that make efficient use of the soil AMF community in arable production systems.
Conclusions
The genetic base for the regulation of the symbiosis leading to opportunities for human-imposed selection to extend and improve benefits by AMF has become more and more evident. Nowadays, with the availability of genome-wide marker coverage available for many crop species (incl. important leguminous crops), we will be able to increase the explained variance of QTL that govern plant traits such as disease resistance, and, consequently, develop improved marker-assisted selection tools for those traits. Phosphorus mobilisation is not the only important mode of action of the mycorrhiza symbiosis. Besides the need for organic (or low input) breeding programmes to fully exploit AMF-mediated plant traits, it remains crucial to better understand the heritability of those system traits. The authors pledge to extend the term MR to include other important traits such as disease resistance and include mycorrhizal use efficiency as an additional measure to help establish an efficient balance between plants and AMF for optimised yield and yield stability. Finally yet importantly, some of the above-mentioned concepts can also be applied to the plant-associated microbial community as a whole. The analysis of genotypic variation in microbiome composition and functioning will help to identify microbial hubs and key pathogens and beneficials that play a crucial role in the expression of system traits. This will provide crucial information towards the development of novel breeding tools to make efficient use of plant–microbe interactions during the selection process.
References
Aira M, Gómez-Brandón M, Lazcano C et al (2010) Plant genotype strongly modifies the structure and growth of maize rhizosphere microbial communities. Soil Biol Biochem 42:2276–2281. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2010.08.029
Alvey S, Bagayoko M, Neumann G, Buerkert A (2001) Cereal/legume rotations affect chemical properties and biological activities in two West African soils. Plant Soil 231:45–54. doi:10.1023/A:1010386800937
An G-H, Kobayashi S, Enoki H et al (2009) How does arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization vary with host plant genotype? An example based on maize (Zea mays) germplasms. Plant Soil 327:441–453. doi:10.1007/s11104-009-0073-3
Azcón-Aguilar C, Barea J (1996) Arbuscular mycorrhizas and biological control of soil-borne plant pathogens – an overview of the mechanisms involved. Mycorrhiza 6:457–464
Azcón-Aguilar C, Jaizme-Vega MC, Calvet C (2002) The contribution of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to the control of soil-borne plant pathogens. Mycorrhizal Technol Agric 15:187–197. doi:10.1007/978-3-0348-8117-3_15
Baon JB, Smith SE, Alston AM (1993) Mycorrhizal responses of barley cultivars differing in P efficiency. Plant Soil 157:97–105
Benhamou N, Fortin JA, Hamel C et al (1994) Resistance responses of mycorrhizal Ri T-DNA-transformed carrot roots to infection by Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. chrysanthemi. Phytopathology 85:958–968
Bennett AE, Daniell TJ, White PJ (2013) Benefits of Breeding Crops for Yield Response to Soil Organisms. In: Molecular Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere, pp 17–27
Berendsen RL, Pieterse CMJ, Bakker PAHM (2012) The rhizosphere microbiome and plant health. Trends Plant Sci 17:478–486. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2012.04.001
Berg G, Opelt K, Zachow C et al (2006) The rhizosphere effect on bacteria antagonistic towards the pathogenic fungus Verticillium differs depending on plant species and site. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 56:250–261. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2005.00025.x
Bever JD, Richardson SC, Lawrence BM et al (2009) Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism. Ecol Lett 12:13–21. doi:10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01254.x
Bodker L, Kjoller R, Rosendahl S (1998) Effect of phosphate and the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus intraradices on disease severity of root rot of peas (Pisum sativum) caused by Aphanomyces euteiches. Mycorrhiza 8:169–174
Bødker L, Kjøller R, Kristensen K, Rosendahl S (2002) Interactions between indigenous arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and Aphanomyces euteiches in field-grown pea. Mycorrhiza 12:7–12. doi:10.1007/s00572-001-0139-4
Boller T, He SY (2009) Innate immunity in plants: an arms race between pattern recognition receptors in plants and effectors in microbial pathogens. Science 324:742–744. doi:10.1126/science.1171647
Buysens C, Dupré de Boulois H, Declerck S (2015) Do fungicides used to control Rhizoctonia solani impact the non-target arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Rhizophagus irregularis? Mycorrhiza 25:277–288. doi:10.1007/s00572-014-0610-7
Campos-Soriano L, García-Martínez J, San Segundo B (2012) The arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis promotes the systemic induction of regulatory defence-related genes in rice leaves and confers resistance to pathogen infection. Mol Plant Pathol 13:579–592. doi:10.1111/J.1364-3703.2011.00773.X
Cordier C, Pozo MJ, Barea JM, Gianinazzi S (1998) Cell defense responses associated with localized and systemic resistance to Phytophthora parasitica induced in tomato by an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 11:1017–1028
Dangl JL, Jones JDG (2001) Plant pathogens and integrated defence responses to infection. Nature 411:826–833
de la Noval B, Pérez E, Martínez B et al (2007) Exogenous systemin has a contrasting effect on disease resistance in mycorrhizal tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) plants infected with necrotrophic or hemibiotrophic pathogens. Mycorrhiza 17:449–460. doi:10.1007/s00572-007-0122-9
Delserone L, McCluskey K, Matthews D, Wanetten H (1999) Pisatin demethylation by fungal pathogens and nonpathogens of pea: association with pisatin tolerance and virulence. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol 55:317–326
Dodd JC, Jeffries P (1989) Effect of fungicides on three vesicular-arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated with winter wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biol Fertil Soils 7:120–128. doi:10.1007/BF00292569
Doornbos RF, van Loon LC, Bakker PAHM (2011) Impact of root exudates and plant defense signaling on bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. A review. Agron Sustain Dev 32:227–243. doi:10.1007/s13593-011-0028-y
Feddermann N, Finlay R, Boller T, Elfstrand M (2010) Functional diversity in arbuscular mycorrhiza - the role of??gene expression, phosphorous nutrition and symbiotic efficiency. Fungal Ecol 3:1–8. doi:10.1016/j.funeco.2009.07.003
Fiorilli V, Catoni M, Miozzi L et al (2009) Global and cell-type gene expression profiles in tomato plants colonized by an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus. New Phytol 184:975–987. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8137.2009.03031.x
Foo E, Reid JB (2012) Strigolactones: new physiological roles for an ancient signal. J Plant Growth Regul 32:429–442. doi:10.1007/s00344-012-9304-6
Foo E, Yoneyama K, Hugill CJ et al (2013) Strigolactones and the regulation of pea symbioses in response to nitrate and phosphate deficiency. Mol Plant 6:76–87. doi:10.1093/mp/sss115
Fritz M, Jakobsen I, Lyngkjaer MF et al (2006) Arbuscular mycorrhiza reduces susceptibility of tomato to Alternaria solani. Mycorrhiza 16:413–419. doi:10.1007/s00572-006-0051-z
Galván GA, Parádi I, Burger K et al (2009) Molecular diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in onion roots from organic and conventional farming systems in the Netherlands. Mycorrhiza 19:317–328. doi:10.1007/s00572-009-0237-2
Galván G, Kuyper TW, Burger K et al (2011) Genetic analysis of the interaction between Allium species and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Theor Appl Genet 122:947–960. doi:10.1007/s00122-010-1501-8
Gao X, Lu X, Wu M et al (2012) Co-inoculation with rhizobia and AMF inhibited soybean red crown rot: from field study to plant defense-related gene expression analysis. PLoS ONE 7:1–10. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0033977
Garbeva P, van Elsas JD, van Veen JA et al (2007) Rhizosphere microbial community and its response to plant species and soil history. Plant Soil 302:19–32. doi:10.1007/s11104-007-9432-0
Garrido JMG, Morcillo RJL, Rodríguez JAM et al (2010) Variations in the mycorrhization characteristics in roots of wild-type and ABA-deficient tomato are accompanied by specific transcriptomic alterations. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 23:651–664. doi:10.1094/MPMI-23-5-0651
Gianinazzi S, Gollotte A, Binet M-N et al (2010) Agroecology: the key role of arbuscular mycorrhizas in ecosystem services. Mycorrhiza 20:519–530. doi:10.1007/s00572-010-0333-3
Glazebrook J (2005) Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol 43:205–227. doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.43.040204.135923
Gomez-Roldan V, Fermas S, Brewer PB et al (2008) Strigolactone inhibition of shoot branching. Nature 455:189–194. doi:10.1038/nature07271
Gu Y-H, Mazzola M (2003) Modification of fluorescent pseudomonad community and control of apple replant disease induced in a wheat cultivar-specific manner. Appl Soil Ecol 24:57–72. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(03)00066-0
Gutjahr C, Paszkowski U (2009) Weights in the balance: jasmonic acid and salicylic acid signaling in root-biotroph interactions. Mol Plant Microbe Interact MPMI 22:763–772. doi:10.1094/MPMI-22-7-0763
Harman GE, Howell CR, Viterbo A et al (2004) Trichoderma species–opportunistic, avirulent plant symbionts. Nat Rev Microbiol 2:43–56. doi:10.1038/nrmicro797
Harrier LA, Watson CA (2004) The potential role of arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi in the bioprotection of plants against soil-borne pathogens in organic and/or other sustainable farming systems. Pest Manag Sci 60:149–157. doi:10.1002/ps.820
Hause B, Mrosk C, Isayenkov S, Strack D (2007) Jasmonates in arbuscular mycorrhizal interactions. Phytochemistry 68:101–110. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2006.09.025
Hernández-Dorrego A, Mestre-Parés J (2010) Evaluation of some fungicides on mycorrhizal symbiosis between two Glomus species from commercial inocula and Allium porrum L. seedlings. Spanish. J Agric Res 8:43. doi:10.5424/sjar/201008S1-1222
Herrera-Medina MJ, Tamayo MI, Vierheilig H et al (2008) The jasmonic acid signalling pathway restricts the development of the arbuscular mycorrhizal association in tomato. J Plant Growth Regul 27:221–230. doi:10.1007/s00344-008-9049-4
Hetrick BAD, Wilson GWT, Cox TS (1993) Mycorrhizal dependence of modern wheat cultivars and ancestors: a synthesis. Can J Bot 71:512–518. doi:10.1139/b93-056
Hildermann I, Messmer M, Dubois D et al (2010) Nutrient use efficiency and arbuscular mycorrhizal root colonisation of winter wheat cultivars in different farming systems of the DOK long-term trial. J Sci Food Agric n/a-n/a. doi:10.1002/jsfa.4048
Hohmann P, Jones EE, Hill RA, Stewart A (2011) Understanding Trichoderma in the root system of Pinus radiata: associations between rhizosphere colonisation and growth promotion for commercially grown seedlings. Fungal Biol 115:759–767. doi:10.1016/j.funbio.2011.05.010
Hohmann P, Jones EE, Hill RA, Stewart A (2012) Ecological studies of the bio-inoculant Trichoderma hamatum LU592 in the root system of Pinus radiata. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 80:709–721. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.2012.01340.x
Hohmann P, Backes G, Thonar C, Messmer M (2016) Breeding for symbioses – Mycorrhizae as a case study. In: Kölliker R, Boller B (eds) Proceedings of the 20th EUCARPIA General Congress. Plant Breeding: the Art of Bringing Science to Life. Agroscope, Zurich
Horton MW, Bodenhausen N, Beilsmith K et al (2014) Genome-wide association study of Arabidopsis thaliana leaf microbial community. Nat Commun 5:5320. doi:10.1038/ncomms6320
Jin H, Germida JJ, Walley FL (2013) Suppressive effects of seed-applied fungicides on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) differ with fungicide mode of action and AMF species. Appl Soil Ecol 72:22–30. doi:10.1016/j.apsoil.2013.05.013
Jung SC, Martinez-Medina A, Lopez-Raez JA, Pozo MJ (2012) Mycorrhiza-induced resistance and priming of plant defenses. J Chem Ecol 38:651–664. doi:10.1007/s10886-012-0134-6
Kaeppler SM, Parke JL, Mueller SM et al (2000) Variation among maize inbred lines and detection of quantitative trait loci for growth at low phosphorus and responsiveness to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Crop Sci 40:358. doi:10.2135/cropsci2000.402358x
Kiers ET, Rousseau RA, West SA, Denison RF (2003) Host sanctions and the legume—rhizobium mutualism. Nature 425:1095–1098
Klironomos J (2003) Variation in plant response to native and exotic arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Ecology 84:2292–2301. doi:10.1890/02-0413
Krishna KR, Shetty KG, Dart PJ, Andrews DJ (1985) Genotype dependent variation in mycorrhizal colonization and response to inoculation of pearl millet. Plant Soil 86:113–125. doi:10.1007/BF02185031
Lehmann A, Barto EK, Powell JR, Rillig MC (2012) Mycorrhizal responsiveness trends in annual crop plants and their wild relatives—a meta-analysis on studies from 1981 to 2010. Plant Soil 355:231–250. doi:10.1007/s11104-011-1095-1
Leiser WL, Olatoye MO, Rattunde HFW et al (2016) No need to breed for enhanced colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to improve low-P adaptation of West African sorghums. Plant Soil 401:51–64. doi:10.1007/s11104-015-2437-1
Lendzemo V, Kuyper T, Matusova R et al (2007) Colonization by arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi of sorghum leads to reduced germination and subsequent attachment and emergence of Striga hermonthica. Plant Signal Behav 2:58–62
Linderman R (1994) Role of VAM fungi in biocontrol. In: Pfleger F, Linderman R (eds) Mycorrhiza and plant health. APS Press, St. Paul, pp 1–26
Liu J, Maldonado-Mendoza I, Lopez-Meyer M et al (2007) Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis is accompanied by local and systemic alterations in gene expression and an increase in disease resistance in the shoots. Plant J 50:529–544. doi:10.1111/j.1365-313X.2007.03069.x
Lopez-Raez JA, Verhage A, Fernandez I et al (2010) Hormonal and transcriptional profiles highlight common and differential host responses to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and the regulation of the oxylipin pathway. J Exp Bot 61:2589–2601. doi:10.1093/jxb/erq089
López-Ráez JA, Flors V, García JM, Pozo MJ (2010) AM symbiosis alters phenolic acid content in tomato roots. Plant Signal Behav 5:1138–1140. doi:10.4161/psb.5.9.12659
López-Ráez JA, Charnikhova T, Fernández I et al (2011) Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis decreases strigolactone production in tomato. J Plant Physiol 168:294–297. doi:10.1016/j.jplph.2010.08.011
Mäder P, Edenhofer S, Boller T et al (2000) Arbuscular mycorrhizae in a long-term field trial comparing low-input (organic, biological) and high-input (conventional) farming systems in a crop rotation. Biol Fertil Soils 31:150–156. doi:10.1007/s003740050638
Mark GL, Cassells AC (1996) Genotype-dependence in the interaction between Glomus fistulosum, Phytophthora fragariae and the wild strawberry (Fragaria vesca). Plant Soil 185:233–239. doi:10.1007/BF02257528
Merryweather J, Fitter A (1996) Phosphorus nutrition of an obligately mycorrhizal plant treated with the fungicide benomyl in the field. New Phytol 132:307–311
Merx C (2004) Kontrolle von Pythium ultimum an Erbsen durch arbusculäre Mykorrhiza und Kompost. Diploma thesis. University of Kassel
Meyer JB, Lutz MP, Frapolli M et al (2010) Interplay between wheat cultivars, biocontrol pseudomonads, and soil. Appl Environ Microbiol 76:6196–6204. doi:10.1128/AEM.00752-10
Micallef SA, Shiaris MP, Colón-Carmona A (2009) Influence of Arabidopsis thaliana accessions on rhizobacterial communities and natural variation in root exudates. J Exp Bot 60:1729–1742. doi:10.1093/jxb/erp053
Møller K, Kristensen K, Yohalem D, Larsen J (2009) Biological management of gray mold in pot roses by co-inoculation of the biocontrol agent Ulocladium atrum and the mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae. Biol Control 49:120–125. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.01.015
Morgan JAW, Bending GD, White PJ (2005) Biological costs and benefits to plant-microbe interactions in the rhizosphere. J Exp Bot 56:1729–1739. doi:10.1093/jxb/eri205
Oehl F, Sieverding E, Mäder P et al (2004) Impact of long-term conventional and organic farming on the diversity of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Oecologia 138:574–583. doi:10.1007/s00442-003-1458-2
Parke J, Kaeppler S (2000) Effects of genetic differences among crop species and cultivars upon the arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis. In: Kapulnik Y, Douds DD (eds) Arbuscular mycorrhizas: physiology and function. Springer, Netherlands, pp 131–146
Parniske M (2008) Arbuscular mycorrhiza: the mother of plant root endosymbioses. Nat Rev Microbiol 6:763–775. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1987
Paszkowski U (2006) Mutualism and parasitism: the yin and yang of plant symbioses. Curr Opin Plant Biol 9:364–370. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2006.05.008
Peiffer JA, Spor A, Koren O et al (2013) Diversity and heritability of the maize rhizosphere microbiome under field conditions. PNAS 110:6548–6553. doi:10.1073/pnas.1302837110
Philippot L, Raaijmakers JM, Lemanceau P, van der Putten WH (2013) Going back to the roots: the microbial ecology of the rhizosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol 11:789–799. doi:10.1038/nrmicro3109
Pieterse CMJ, Leon-Reyes A, Van der Ent S, Van Wees SCM (2009) Networking by small-molecule hormones in plant immunity. Nat Chem Biol 5:308–316. doi:10.1038/nchembio.164
Pieterse CMJ, de Jonge R, Berendsen RL (2016) The soil-borne supremacy. Trends Plant Sci 21:171–173. doi:10.1016/j.tplants.2016.01.018
Powell CL, Clark GE, Verberne NL (1982) Growth response of four onion cultivars to several isolates of VA mycorrhizal fungi. New Zeal J Agric Res 25:465–470. doi:10.1080/00288233.1982.10417914
Pozo MJ, Azcón-Aguilar C (2007) Unraveling mycorrhiza-induced resistance. Curr Opin Plant Biol 10:393–398. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2007.05.004
Pozo MJ, Azcón-Aguilar C, Dumas-Gaudot E, Barea JM (1999) β-1,3-Glucanase activities in tomato roots inoculated with arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and/or Phytophthora parasitica and their possible involvement in bioprotection. Plant Sci 141:149–157. doi:10.1016/S0168-9452(98)00243-X
Pozo MJ, Cordier C, Dumas-Gaudot E et al (2002) Localized versus systemic effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on defence responses to Phytophthora infection in tomato plants. J Exp Bot 53:525–534
Pozo MJMJ, Loon LC, Pieterse CMJ et al (2005) Jasmonates—signals in plant-microbe interactions. J Plant Growth Regul 23:211–222. doi:10.1007/s00344-004-0031-5
Pozo M, Jung SC, López-Ráez JA, Azcón-Aguilar C (2010) Impact of arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis on plant response to biotic stress: the role of plant defence mechanisms. In: Koltai H, Kapulnik Y (eds) Arbuscular mycorrhizas: physiology and function. Springer, Netherlands, pp 193–207
Raaijmakers JM, Paulitz TC, Steinberg C et al (2009) The rhizosphere: a playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. Plant Soil 321:341–361. doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9568-6
Rengel Z (2002) Breeding for better symbiosis. Plant Soil 245:147–162. doi:10.1023/A:1020692715291
Ruiz-Lozano JM, Roussel H, Gianinazzi S, Gianinazzi-Pearson V (1999) Defense genes are differentially induced by a mycorrhizal fungus and Rhizobium sp. in wild-type and symbiosis-defective pea genotypes. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 12:976–984. doi:10.1094/MPMI.1999.12.11.976
Ryan MH, Angus JF (2003) Arbuscular mycorrhizae in wheat and field pea crops on a low P soil: increased Zn-uptake but no increase in P-uptake or yield. Plant Soil 250:225–239. doi:10.1023/A:1022839930134
Ryan MH, Norton RM, Kirkegaard JA et al (2002) Increasing mycorrhizal colonisation does not improve growth and nutrition of wheat on Vertosols in south-eastern Australia. Aust J Agric Res 53:1173. doi:10.1071/AR02005
Sawers RJH, Gebreselassie MN, Janos DP, Paszkowski U (2010) Characterizing variation in mycorrhiza effect among diverse plant varieties. Theor Appl Genet 120:1029–1039. doi:10.1007/s00122-009-1231-y
Sikes BA (2010) When do arbuscular mycorhizal fungi protect plant roots from pathogens? Plant Signal Behav 5:763–765. doi:10.4161/psb.5.6.11776
Singh UP, Sarma BK, Singh DP, Bahadur A (2002) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria-mediated induction of phenolics in pea (Pisum sativum) after infection with Erysiphe pisi. Curr Microbiol 44:396–400. doi:10.1007/s00284-001-0007-7
Slezack S, Dumas-Gaudot E, Rosendahl S et al (1999) Endoproteolytic activities in pea roots inoculated with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and/or Aphanomyces euteiches in relation to bioprotection. New Phytol 142:517–529. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.1999.00421.x
Slezack S, Dumas-Gaudot E, Paynot M, Gianinazzi S (2000) Is a fully established arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis required for a bioprotection of Pisum sativum roots against Aphanomyces euteiches? Mol Plant Microbe Interact 13:238–241. doi:10.1094/MPMI.2000.13.2.238
Smith KP, Goodman RM (1999) Host variation for interactions with beneficial plant-associated microbes. Annu Rev Phytopathol 37:476–491
Smith SE, Smith FA (2012) Fresh perspectives on the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in plant nutrition and growth. Mycologia 104:1–13. doi:10.3852/11-229
Splivallo R, Fischer U, Gobel C et al (2009) Truffles regulate plant root morphogenesis via the production of auxin and ethylene. Plant Physiol 150:2018–2029. doi:10.1104/pp.109.141325
Steinkellner S, Hage-Ahmed K, García-Garrido JM et al (2012) A comparison of wild-type, old and modern tomato cultivars in the interaction with the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus mosseae and the tomato pathogen Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Mycorrhiza 22:189–194. doi:10.1007/s00572-011-0393-z
Tawaraya K, Tokairin K, Wagatsuma T (2001) Dependence of Allium fistulosum cultivars on the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus fasciculatum. Appl Soil Ecol 17:119–124. doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(01)00126-3
Thomma BPHJ, Nürnberger T, Joosten MHAJ (2011) Of PAMPs and effectors: the blurred PTI-ETI dichotomy. Plant Cell 23:4–15. doi:10.1105/tpc.110.082602
Van der Ent S, Van Wees SCM, Pieterse CMJ (2009) Jasmonate signaling in plant interactions with resistance-inducing beneficial microbes. Phytochemistry 70:1581–1588. doi:10.1016/j.phytochem.2009.06.009
Van Rhijn P, Vanderleyden J (1995) The Rhizobium-plant symbiosis. Microbiol Rev 59:124–142
Vandenkoornhuyse P, Quaiser A, Duhamel M et al (2015) The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont. New Phytol 206:1196–1206. doi:10.1111/nph.13312
Viebahn M, Veenman C, Wernars K et al (2005) Assessment of differences in ascomycete communities in the rhizosphere of field-grown wheat and potato. FEMS Microbiol Ecol 53:245–253. doi:10.1016/j.femsec.2004.12.014
Vierheilig H, Steinkellner S, Khaosaad T, Garcia-Garrido JM (2008) The biocontrol effect of mycorrhization on soilborne fungal pathogens and the autoregulation of the AM symbiosis: One mechanism, two effects? Mycorrhiza State Art, Genet Mol Biol Eco-Function, Biotechnol Eco-Physiology, Struct Syst (Third Ed 307–320. doi: 10.1007/978-3-540-78826-3_15
Vierheilig H, Steinkellner S, Khaosaad T, Garcia-Garrido JM (2008b) The biocontrol effect of mycorrhization on soilborne fungal pathogens and the autoregulation of the AM symbiosis: one mechanism, two effects? Mycorrhiza. doi:10.1007/978-3-540-78826-3_15
Wehner J, Antunes PM, Powell JR et al (2010) Plant pathogen protection by arbuscular mycorrhizas: a role for fungal diversity? Pedobiologia (Jena) 53:197–201. doi:10.1016/j.pedobi.2009.10.002
Whipps JM (2004) Prospects and limitations for mycorrhizas in biocontrol of root pathogens. Can J Bot 82:1198–1227. doi:10.1139/B04-082
Wissuwa M, Mazzola M, Picard C (2009) Novel approaches in plant breeding for rhizosphere-related traits. Plant Soil 321:409–430. doi:10.1007/s11104-008-9693-2
Yamada T, Hashimoto H, Shiraishi T, Hachiro O (1989) Suppression of pisatin, phenylalanine ammonia-lyase mRNA, and chalcone synthase mRNA accumulation by a putative pathogenicity factor from the fungus Mycosphaerella pinodes. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 2:256–261
Acknowledgements
The authors wish to thank the Swiss Federal Office of Agriculture for financial support.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This article is part of the Topical Collection on Plant Breeding: the Art of Bringing Science to Life. Highlights of the 20th EUCARPIA General Congress, Zurich, Switzerland, 29 August–1 September 2016
Edited by Roland Kölliker, Richard G. F. Visser, Achim Walter & Beat Boller
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hohmann, P., Messmer, M.M. Breeding for mycorrhizal symbiosis: focus on disease resistance. Euphytica 213, 113 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1900-x
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10681-017-1900-x