Abstract
The success of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens as a biological control agent relies on its ability to outgrow plant pathogens. It is also thought to interact with its plant host by inducing systemic resistance. In this study, the ability of B. amyloliquefaciens MBI600 to elicit defense (or other) responses in tomato seedlings and plants was assessed upon the expression of marker genes and transcriptomic analysis. Spray application of Serifel, a commercial formulation of MBI600, induced responses in a dose-dependent manner. Low dosage primed plant defense by activation of SA-responsive genes. Suggested dosage induced defense by mediating synergistic cross-talk between JA/ET and SA-signaling. Saturation of tomato roots or leaves with MBI600 elicitors activated JA/ET signaling at the expense of SA-mediated responses. The complex signaling network that is implicated in MBI600-tomato seedling interactions was mapped. MBI600 and flg22 (a bacterial flagellin peptide) elicitors induced, in a similar manner, biotic and abiotic stress responses by the coordinated activation of genes involved in JA/ET biosynthesis as well as hormone and redox signaling. This is the first study to suggest the activation of plant defense following the application of a commercial microbial formulation under conditions of greenhouse crop production.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains are used commercially as biological control agents (BCAs) that suppress plant pathogens1. Their mode of action involves synthesis and secretion of secondary metabolites with antibiotic function; also competition for nutrients and root colonization2. Proliferation on root surfaces prevents the entry of phytopathogens but also initiates interactions with the plant host that trigger defense mechanisms3.
It is known that plants respond to attack by inducing two distinct defense mechanisms, the systemic acquired resistance (SAR) and the induced systemic resistance (ISR)4,5,6. Both are effective against multiple but different types of pathogens7. The two defense mechanisms use different pathways of plant metabolism; SAR requires the synthesis of salicylic acid (SA), which in turn triggers the expression of a well-known set of Pathogen-Related (PR) genes8,9, while ISR is dependent on jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) signaling pathways10,11. The interplay between SA and JA responsive pathways involves synergism or antagonism which allows plant hosts to prioritize them, depending on the sequence and type of attackers encountered12,13,14. A major constituent of this hormonal networking is ET that can act both positively and negatively on plant immunity, by suppressing SA-responsive signaling pathways while activating their JA-responsive counterparts and vice versa15. Apart from these three major defense hormones, abscisic acid (ABA), auxin, gibberellins (GAs) and cytokinins also function, in synergy or antagonism, as secondary regulators of the plant immunity network16,17,18,19.
Since the early 1990s, activation of ISR by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) has been investigated as a possible practical way to use induced resistance in agriculture20. Arabidopsis thaliana plants, when treated with PGPR are thought to respond with the induction of ISR via the JA/ET – NPR1 dependent signaling pathway while SA is gradually suppressed by this synergistic action21. In support, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 was able to enhance the expression of defense marker genes such as pr1 (SA marker gene) and pdf1.2 (JA/ET marker gene) in lettuce plants exposed only to FZB42, while the simultaneous presence of FZB42 and the lettuce pathogen Rhizoctonia solani still activated pdf1.2 but pr1 expression levels were lower compared to the FZB42 treatment22. It was suggested that both SA and ET signaling pathways are responsive, at first, to the synergistic activation of JA/ET signaling pathways, of which SA signaling is suppressed upon pathogen attack. Inoculation of Arabidopsis plantlets with Bacillus subtilis FB17 also induced pdf1.2 and pr1 transcript levels23. Despite the accumulating knowledge on PGPR-mediated induction of resistance responses, little is known about the ability of commercial formulations of BCAs (containing dormant cells or endospores) to elicit plant defenses following root or leaf treatment. Moreover, the signaling network that is involved at the BCA-mediated induction of defense responses in real crop production conditions remain to be elucidated.
In this study, based on previous findings suggesting induction of tomato resistance to viral pathogens by B. amyloliquefaciens subsp. plantarum MBI60024, we thoroughly investigated the activation of tomato defense mechanisms by Serifel, a commercial formulation containing MBI600 endospores, with confirmed fungicidal and bactericidal functions. The induction and interplay of ISR and SAR, activated by the presence of MBI600 in tomato rhizosphere or phyllosphere was predicted based on the up-regulation of a total of 8 salicylic acid, jasmonic acid or ethylene-responsive marker genes. Activation was assessed, using real-time qPCR, at 10 time points following drench or spray application of 4-week-old tomato plants. The use of increasing concentrations of MBI600 in application schemes revealed that synergy or antagonism between ISR and SAR signaling pathways depends on the abundance of microbial elicitors perceived. To confirm this, we saturated the leaf and root surface with such elicitors, in the form of an MBI600 cell-free culture filtrate (CFCF). The transcriptome of tomato seedlings treated with CFCF was analyzed and significant differentiation of regulation of 24 genes was confirmed using qRT-PCR. Some of these genes are identified for the first time in PGPR-plant interactions. A pathway analysis of early and late responses allowed the suggestion of a signaling network that is triggered by MBI600-tomato seedling interactions.
Results
Seedling root treatment with MBI600 elicitors activates ISR
Expression analysis of a series of ISR or SAR marker genes following drench application of Serifel on tomato plants suggested a mild effect on the activation of immune responses (Supplementary Fig. S1). Results exhibited an early response of both pr1b1 and loxD transcription levels at 3 days post application (dpa) compared to control treatment and a significant up-regulation of loxD transcription levels at 10 dpa. No significant differences were observed among treatments on the expression levels of the rest of the genes.
A similar analysis was performed following drench application of seedlings with MBI600 CFCF to maximize root contact with MBI600 elicitors; flg22 and water-LB treatment served as positive and negative controls, respectively (see Methods). Results (Fig. 1, Supplementary Table S2) showed that erf1 transcripts gradually increased over time in both cases of MBI600 CFCF and flg22 compared to negative control whereas loxD transcripts peaked at 2 hours post application (hpa) and were then gradually decreased but remained in higher levels than those of negative control treatment at all time points. Expression trends were similar in the case of flg22. The CFCF effect on loxD expression was comparable to that of the flg22. Similarly, pti5 transcript levels increased early after CFCF application (2 h) and remained elevated at 6 and 24 hpa, compared to negative control. Up-regulation of pr1b1 transcriptional levels occurred late (24 hpa) in the case of CFCF and early in the case of flg22, compared to negative control. Expression levels of myc2 were significantly increased early (2 h) after CFCF application, while npr1 showed the same trend at 2 hpa, but comparisons were not statistically significant. No significant differences were observed among treatments in the expression levels of apx1 and eds1 genes.
For further investigation of interactions that occurred between MBI600 elicitors and roots of tomato plants, a transcriptomic analysis was performed on the same seedling samples. Each sample (flg22_6h or flg22_24 h, MBI_6h or MBI_24h, control_6h or control_24h), yielded at least 100 genes that were differentially expressed and selected based on P. values of comparisons between treatments and controls (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE123589). The 74% or 57% of these genes were up-regulated, in the case of MBI_6h or MBI_24h samples. Respective numbers were 95% and 65% in the case of flg22_6h or flg22_24h (Supplementary Fig. S2). This analysis was used as a guideline for the selection of 16 differentially expressed genes (further to the 8 markers), favoring up-regulated genes that are implicated in hormonal responsive signaling or biosynthesis. Consistent with the microarray results, the expression analysis of all 16 genes showed elevated transcription levels following both MBI600 CFCF or flg22 treatments, in comparison to control treatment 6 and 24h (Fig. 2, Supplementary Table S2). In detail, transcriptional levels of cevi19, DrTi, Pin2, NBS-LRR and ppo exhibited a concave uptrend with peak values at 2 and 24 h while minimums were observed at 6 h after MBI600 CFCF application. All peaks at 2 and 24 h were statistically different from negative controls. The same trend was observed for flg22 in higher levels than those of ΜΒΙ600 CFCF, except for ppo transcripts that peaked at 2 h and were then gradually reduced. A significant up-regulation was observed for p69b and fad2 expression at 24 h after CFCF treatment while no differences were observed at 2 and 6 hpa compared to negative controls. Interestingly, fad2 transcripts in flg22 samples were higher than those of the negative control at all time points counter to p69b where no differences were observed. Transcript levels of aco1, exlb1, parA, gh3.8, and td2 genes were gradually increased over time reaching a peak at 24 h after MBI600 CFCF application. Flg22 reduced the expression of aco1 and parA over time but at all time points the transcription levels were higher than those of the negative control. Moreover, expression of glp4, lapA and pp2c was peaked at 2 hpa; all comparisons to controls were significant. Expression was then gradually decreased and only glp4 and pp2c transcript levels still remained higher than those of respective controls at 6 and 24 hpa. Finally, pdf1.2 expression showed no differences among treatments except for flg22 treated sample at 6 hpa, in which case transcripts were elevated.
MBI600 elicitors triggered immune responses in leaf tissue
MBI600 elicitor perception by leaf receptors was also investigated following CFCF spray application of tomato plants. Expression analysis showed elevated erf1, myc2 and pti5 expression instantly (0 dpa) after MBI600 CFCF treatment (Fig. 3, Supplementary Table S2). At 1 dpa, only eds1 and loxD transcripts were significantly higher than water treatment, whereas the same response was recorded for npr1 transcripts but differences to water treatment were marginal. Late responses were observed at 4 dpa for erf1 and pr1b1 transcriptional levels which were significantly higher, reaching approximately a 2-fold increase compared to water treatment, in both cases. In contrast, loxD transcripts were significantly lower. Interestingly, at 7 dpa transcriptional levels of eds1, loxD, myc2 and npr1 genes were significantly lower, while erf1, pr1b1, and pti5 showed no significant differences compared to water treatment. Finally, apx1 transcripts were elevated only at 7 dpa.
Serifel activated immune responses in a dose-dependent manner
Activation of marker genes of ISR and/or SAR following Serifel spray application was monitored based on qRT-PCR expression analysis (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S2). Suggested versus low dosages and one versus two application schemes were compared for such effects. The low spraying dosage was equal to that suggested for drench application in order to compare root with leaf effects.
Application of low dosage of Serifel had a significant effect only on npr1 and pr1b1 expression levels at 5 dpa compared to control (Fig. 4A). While npr1 expression was decreased over time, pr1b1 expression was sustained at high levels until 8 dpa, with a 6-fold peak at 7 dpa. On the contrary, most marker genes were activated following application of Serifel at the suggested dosage (Fig. 4B). In detail, an early (1 dpa) and significant up-regulation was observed in the case of eds1, erf1, npr1, pr1b1 and pti5 genes which was followed by an instant (2 dpa) reduction in levels comparable to those of the control. A similar expression pattern occurred in the case of loxD immediately after application (0 dpa), while no early responses were observed in the case of apx1 and myc2. At 3 dpa there was a significant up-regulation only for the npr1 gene. At 7 dpa, expression of loxD, myc2, pr1b1 and pti5 was significantly up-regulated. Seven, 2.5 or 2-fold differences compared to control were calculated in the case of pr1b1, loxD or myc2, respectively. Expression levels of loxD and pti5 remained high at 8 dpa while those of pr1b1 and myc2 were gradually reduced. A late response (8 dpa) was observed in the case of apx1. The only gene found activated at 10 dpa was pr1b1.
Concerning one versus two Serifel applications, expression levels of eds1 and npr1 were up-regulated instantly following the second application (7 dpa) in comparison to control and single application treatments (Fig. 4, Supplementary Table S2). In the case of apx1, transcripts remained at high levels at 8 dpa in contrast to eds1 and npr1 transcripts which were reduced. Finally, the two application schemes had a positive effect on myc2 expression levels which remained at high levels compared to one application scheme and controls at 8 dpa. At 10 dpa, only eds1 and erf1 expression levels were significantly down-regulated; the former solely in the two application schemes, while the latter in both.
In addition to marker genes, the same leaf tissue was used to assess the activation of genes that were identified by seedling experiments but have not been previously associated with PGPR-plant interactions. exlb1 was significantly down-regulated at 8 dpa while no significant differences in comparison to control were observed at the rest of the time points (Supplementary Fig. S3). fad2l demonstrated a marginal induction early (1 dpa) and a significant induction late (8 dpa) after Serifel application, when it reached a 6-fold increase compared to control. A mild activation of gh3.8 occurred following Serifel application but comparisons to control were not statistically significant at any time point. Transcription levels of parA were immediately elevated after Serifel application (0 dpa), reaching a peak at 1 dpa. The same trend was observed at 7 and 8 dpa. Finally, pp2c expression levels were down-regulated at 0 and 2 dpa, significantly up-regulated at 3 and 7 dpa, and down-regulated again at 10 dpa.
Discussion
Local and systemic defense responses triggered by beneficial and parasitic microorganisms are controlled by a signaling network in which plant hormones play a dominant role21. In contrast to plant pathogens, beneficial microorganisms have been thought to trigger mild plant responses that do not overall affect the plant host transcriptome25,26 and contribute to priming rather than the actual induction of systemic defense27. This study investigated the ability of Serifel, a commercial formulation containing pure B. amyloliquefaciens MBI600 endospores (BASF SE), to activate stress signaling responses of tomato plants. Moreover, Serifel activated defense mechanisms in a dose-dependent manner: npr1 and pr1b1 genes were up-regulated by low exposure to BCAs, indicative of a mild activation of defense mechanisms whereas, most genes were activated when BCA cues exceed a certain threshold. Accordingly, Serifel drench application at a dosage equal to low spray application up-regulated only loxd gene while MBI600 CFCF drench application in seedlings, which maximized host perception of MBI600 elicitors, activated most genes, suggesting an induction of defense mechanisms.
Serifel spraying at a low dosage activated only a few SA-responsive genes (npr1, pr1b1) whereas use of suggested dosage resulted in the activation of all JA/ET-responsive genes assessed (erf1, loxD, myc2), while the SA signaling pathway was still active (eds1, npr1, pr1b1; Fig. 4). This suggests a synergy between SA and JA/ET – responsive pathways, which was confirmed in experiments using MBI600 CFCF. Moreover, the second Serifel application elevated the expression of SA-responsive genes, suggesting a priming effect on SAR rather than ISR responses. We have recently reporteda similar observation24.
To summarize and comprehend the results that were extracted from the expression analysis of the 24 genes described in Figs. 1 and 2, an overview of the various signaling pathways in which these genes are involved is demonstrated in Fig. 5. In addition to the hormonal network, it was revealed that MBI600 elicitors also activated genes that are directly or indirectly implicated in abiotic stress responses and pest tolerance. Metabolic changes that led to such events could be regulated by glutathione metabolism and redox signaling.
Concerning the hormonal network, MBI600 elicitors suppressed ABA and enhanced auxin signaling pathways. The suppression of ABA-mediated signaling was suggested by the activation of pp2c, a negative regulator of ABA28,29 that has been associated with cold and salt tolerance30,31,32. Auxin-mediated responses are implied by the activation of gh3.8 and exlb1. Timing of upregulation (24 hpa) was in accordance with the role of gh3.8 as a late auxin-responsive gene33 which regulates plant development34. This gene has been associated with enhanced disease resistance in rice through the suppression of auxin signaling and expression of expansins, in a SA and JA independent manner35. EXLB1, an expansin-like protein, is a member of a family of small cell wall proteins36 that have the ability to non-enzymatically trigger a pH-dependent relaxation of the cell wall thus enabling cell expansion37. Expansins affect water loss and thus drought, salinity, and heat tolerance38,39,40. The elevated abundance of exlb1 transcripts, despite gh3.8 upregulation, could be explained by the fact that expansins are not solely regulated by auxin but also ethylene37.
In fact, components of Jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET) biosynthesis and signaling pathways were activated by MBI600 elicitors. Elevated transcript of aco1, an ACC oxidase (ACO) that participates in the final step of ET biosynthesis41, indicated the activation of the ET signaling pathway. ET is thought to signal ISR, in synergy with JA during root colonization by PGPR6,42,43. Such signaling involves regulation of the ethylene-responsive factor 1 (erf1) which is rapidly activated by ET or JA but requires both signaling pathways44 and acts as a transcription factor for the regulation of genes responsive to biotic or abiotic stress45. ET and JA synergy was confirmed by the increased expression levels of erf1 following MBI600 CFCF or flg22 application. Another ET responsive factor that was activated early after CFCF treatment was pti5 which is implicated in resistance gene-mediated recognition of bacterial pathogens46, independently of SA, ET and JA47 and is thought to activate SA-induced PR genes but not ET-regulated genes48.
The fact that erf1 is negatively regulated by ET and positively regulated by JA49 suggests that MBI600 CFCF balanced the ET effect by producing JA. Indeed, MBI600 CFCF treatment led to the up-regulation of genes involved in JA biosynthesis such as loxD, a fad2-like (FAD2-L) and cevi19, a homolog of the Arabidopsis gene fad2 lacking the putative third transmembrane domain50. Tomato lipoxygenase D (loxD) constitutes one of the first identified marker genes of the JA pathway and mediates defense against fungal and bacterial pathogens51,52 as well as herbivore attack53. Upstream of loxD, at the oxylipins pathway, function the fatty acid desaturases (fad2 and cevi19). Unsaturated fatty acids have been thought to participate in plant responses to biotic and abiotic stress54,55. MBI600 CFCF was found to induce late up-regulation (at 24 hpa) of fad2l and cevi19 in tomato seedlings. Unsaturated fatty acid accumulation in plants has been associated with Pseudomonas putida-mediated resistance to Botrytis cinerea56 and is associated with Bacillus sp. for the first time in this work. Activation of the JA signaling pathway was suggested by the expression of myc2 which was mildly activated, early after CFCF treatment. MYC2 is a bHLH (basic helix-loop-helix) transcription factor that regulates JA-dependent gene expression57 such as loxD, td2, lapA, parA, drt1, and pr1b1, all of which was activated following CFCF application. Leucine aminopeptidase A (lapA), is a positive regulator of late wound responses58 and its up-regulation has been associated with water deficit, salinity and herbivore defense59,60. Threonine Deaminase (TD) functions in the chloroplast to catalyze the committed step in the biosynthesis of isoleucine and is induced by the JA signaling pathway in response to wounding and herbivory61,62,63. The proteinase inhibitor gene drTI is a small protein that belongs to the Kunitz-type PIs64. Generally, it is present in high concentrations in storage tissues but its expression can be detectable in leaves in response to an attack by insects or pathogens65. A similar response following PGPR challenge is reported for the first time.
It was recently found that MYC2 binds to promoters of the glutathione biosynthetic enzymes in order to activate their transcription during JA-mediated reoxygenation66,67. In support, MBI600 CFCF induced genes involved at the glutathione metabolism, such as parA and lapA. parA encodes for a glutathione S-transferase that catalyzes the conjugation of tripeptide (γ-Glu-Cys-Gly) glutathione (GSH) to a variety of substrates such as endobiotic and xenobiotic compounds for the detoxification and its expression is induced in response to biotic stress68. The fact that lapA also participates at the same biosynthetic pathway, that of mercapturic acid, indicates an activation of xenobiotic detoxification following CFCF treatment. Previous reports on the role of MYC2 as a master regulator of JA signaling69 are confirmed in this study.
In contrast to leaf application, seedling drench with MBI600 did not affect SA-responsive genes targeted in this study. Non-expressor of PR genes 1 (npr1) is activated by SA and has a dual function. Inside the nucleus, it acts as a transcriptional co-activator of a large set of defense effectors, including the PR proteins. It also facilitates cross-talk between SA and JA/ET signaling pathways in the cytosol, by suppressing the transcription of JA-responsive gene70,71. In accordance with previous findings72, flg22-mediated activation of npr1 led to elevated transcript levels of pr1b1, a basic member of Pathogenesis Related protein PR-1. On the contrary, transcript levels of npr1 were not modified following MBI600 CFCF treatment. Moreover, expression of eds1, which mediates SA biosynthesis and downstream signaling of SA responsive genes73 was not affected by CFCF treatment. This suggests that activation of pr1b1 by CFCF is SA-independent and could be ET-responsive. Pdf1.2 is a plant defensin involved in plant innate immune responses74,75. Its expression is regulated by the ERF1 transcription factor which acts downstream of the intersection between ET and JA pathways76,77. MBI600 CFCF had no effect on pdf1.2 transcript levels while a mild activation occurred after flg22 treatment. This might be a consequence of the JA/ET synergistic action in which MYC2 repressed the expression of pdf1.214. In support, flg22 treatment resulted in the up-regulation of npr1 at 2 and 24 hpa but not at 6 hpa. This corresponded to an up-regulation of JA-responsive pdf1.2 at 6 hpa but not at 2 and 24 hpa, thus confirming the cytosolic function of NPR1.
MBI600 CFCF was also found to activate, possible through the plant stress hormone network, oxidative burst components. Genes ppo and glp4 that are, directly or indirectly, involved in redox signaling were up-regulated following CFCF treatment. Expression patterns were similar to those that occurred following flg22 treatment. PPOs catalyze the production of quinones which might have an antibacterial role78. Germin and germin-like proteins (GLPs) have mainly superoxide dismutase activity79,80 and function in basal host resistance81. Interestingly, transcript levels of ascorbate peroxidase 1 (apx1), which participates at the antioxidative response that reduces H2O282, were not affected by CFCF (or flg22). Expression of p69b at 24 hpa, could thus be attributed to H2O2 accumulation. P69B is one of 15 subtilisin-like proteases (subtilases) of tomato83,84 and has been previously reported to be induced upon pathogen attack85. Subtilisin was up-regulated late following CFCF (but not flg22) treatment and it coincided rather than preceded pr1 expression, as previously reported86.
This is the first study to report the ability of a commercial BCA formulation (Serifel) to induce plant defense mechanisms and to time the signaling events that occurred following drench or spray application of tomato plants. MBI600 elicitors were equally capable of inducing defense mechanisms, suggesting their perception root and leaf receptors. Induction of systemic resistance upon leaf-BCA interaction suggests that certain PGPRs also activate defense in the phyllosphere. This has been overlooked as research has been focused on aseptic PGPR-root systems. A secondary, indirect mode of action gives additional value to successful bio-fungicides of the rapidly growing biopesticide market.
Methods
Plant growth conditions
Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) seeds were pre-germinated on moist potting soil under greenhouse conditions (25 °C and 16 h photoperiod). After 10 days, plantlets were transplanted into 9 cm square pots filled with a three-element (N-K-P) fertilizer compost and were left to grow for two more weeks or until the developmental stage of four real leaves before starting with experiments.
Application of formulations and MBI600 CFCF
Serifel is a WP formulation containing 9.9% of MBI600 endospores as the only active ingredient; no MBI600 metabolites are included and the base material has no direct or indirect antimicrobial effect. Serifel was applied either by irrigation (drench) or spraying (foliar) twice with a 7-day interval. Dosage was adjusted based on label claims; drench suspension was adjusted to 30 mg/L water while spray suspension at 30 mg (low dosage) or 1.25 g (suggested dosage) of WP in 1 L water. A water treatment was used as a control. Each treatment plot included 12 plants and experiments were repeated three times. Sampling was performed at different time points (0, 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8 and 10 dpa) and every sample was a pool of 4 leaves of 4 different plants (3 samples per treatment). Samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C. CFCF was extracted from an overnight culture of Bam 600 (OD600 1.2) after centrifugation at 3000 rpm for 15 min at 23 °C by filtration through 0.45 μm bacteriostatic filters (Sarstedt). CFCF or water (control) were applied in tomato plants by spraying. Sampling was performed at four-time points (0, 1, 4 and 7 dpa). Samples were a pool consisting of 4 leaves of 4 different plants (3 samples per treatment). Samples were frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C.
Application of MBI600 CFCF in tomato seedlings
A modified version of Frei Dit Frey et al. protocol was used87. In brief, fifteen days after germination on agar plates containing 1 × MS medium (Duchefa), under controlled conditions, tomato seedlings were transferred to liquid MS (2 seedlings/2 mL of medium per well in 24-well-plates). Three hours after transfer, the medium was supplied with flg22 peptide (Eurogentec) to a final concentration of 1 μΜ or with MBI600 CFCF to 1/5 v/v volume. Control treatment consisted of a 1/5 v/v LB + MS solution. Plantlets were collected at different time points after treatment (2, 6 and 24 h), frozen in liquid nitrogen and stored at −80 °C. Three independent experiments were performed. Each experiment included 2 biological replicates per treatment and each replicate was a pool of two seedlings, yielding a total number of tested 108 seedlings.
Gene expression and data analysis
Total RNA was extracted from each sample using TRI reagent (Ambion) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. All subsequent steps for transcriptional level analysis and RT-qPCR were performed as described before88. Transcript levels of the target genes were quantified relatively to ubiquitin89. Primer sequences are listed in Supplementary Table S1.
qPCR analysis was performed using the method described in Steibel et al.90. Ct values of each factor combination were fitted to LMMs as dependent variables while treatments, genes and their interactions comprised the fixed factors. Samples nested within treatment and experiment were the random effects of the models. Log fold change of any specific gene for every treatment relative to the control treatment and its confidence intervals were calculated by formulating the contrasts of the model estimates according to equation 5 of the report of Steibel et al.90. Estimates of the Ct values of the Ubi3 gene were used as reference. In cases where multiple plates were needed for the coverage of all samples, multi-run calibration was implemented with the use of replicated template samples across respective runs91. After normalization, calibration samples were excluded from the analysis. R programming language (https://www.R-project.org/) was implemented for the whole analysis.
Microarray and data analysis
Microarray experiments followed the Minimum Information about a Microarray Experiment guidelines for international standardization and quality control of microarray experiments92. Two independent biological replicates were implemented for each time point of the analysis (6 and 24 h). For each replicate, a pool of two tomato seedlings was used as a source for total RNA extraction using TRI reagent (Ambion, Inc.) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Target preparation and Hybridization was performed as described in Katsarou et al.93 on a 4 × 44 K tomato array (Agilent Technologies G2519F-022270). Further processing and statistical analysis were performed in R language programming environment with the implementation of the limma package94, principally as single channel. Background correction was done using the background Correct function, specifying for normexp method at offset 50, while normalization between arrays was performed by quantile method. Differential expression was assessed by an empirical Bayes approach with cut-offs for the Benjamini–Hochberg FDR-corrected P-values or log2(FC) values at 0.1 or 2 respectively. Alternatively, in order to cross-check the number and identity of selected features, hybridization data were also processed by a dual-channel approach with Aquantile method implemented for normalization between arrays. Gene expression data have been uploaded to the Gene Expression Omnibus with accession number GSE123589.
References
Fravel, D. R. Commercialization and Implementation of Biocontrol. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 43, 337–359 (2005).
Chowdhury, S. P., Hartmann, A., Gao, X. & Borriss, R. Biocontrol mechanism by root-associated Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 – a review. Front. Microbiol. 6 (2015).
Kloepper, J. W., Ryu, C. & Zhang, S. Induced Systemic Resistance and Promotion of Plant Growth by Bacillus spp. 94, 1259–1266 (2004).
Van Wees, S. C. M. et al. Differential Induction of Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis by Biocontrol Bacteria. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 10, 716–724 (1997).
Vlot, A. C., Dempsey, D. A. & Klessig, D. F. Salicylic Acid, a Multifaceted Hormone to Combat Disease. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 47, 177–206 (2009).
Pieterse, C. M. J. et al. Induced Systemic Resistance by Beneficial Microbes. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 52, 347–375, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102340 (2014).
Feys, B. J. & Parker, J. E. Interplay of signaling pathways in plant disease resistance. Trends Genet 16, 449–455 (2000).
Tornero, P., Gadea, J., Conejero, V. & Vera, P. Two PR-1 genes from tomato are differentially regulated and reveal a novel mode of expression for a pathogenesis-related gene during the hypersensitive response and development. Mol. Plant. Microbe. Interact. 10, 624–634 (1997).
Spoel, S. H. & Dong, X. How do plants achieve immunity? Defence without specialized immune cells. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 12, 89–100 (2012).
Van Loon, L. C. Plant responses to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. European Journal of Plant Pathology, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10658-007-9165-1 (2007).
Li, Y. et al. Biocontrol agent Bacillus amyloliquefaciens LJ02 induces systemic resistance against cucurbits powdery mildew. Front. Microbiol, https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2015.00883 (2015).
Kunkel, B. N. & Brooks, D. M. Cross talk between signaling pathways in pathogen defense. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 5, 325–331 (2002).
Bostock, R. M. Signal Crosstalk and Induced Resistance: Straddling the Line Between Cost and Benefit. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 43, 545–580 (2005).
Pieterse, C. M. J., der Does, V., Zamioudis, D., Leon-Reyes, C. & Van Wees, A. S. C. M. Hormonal Modulation of Plant Immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 28, 489–521 (2012).
Leon-Reyes, A. et al. Ethylene Signaling Renders the Jasmonate Response of Arabidopsis Insensitive to Future Suppression by Salicylic Acid. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 23, 187–197 (2010).
Walters, D. R. & McRoberts, N. Plants and biotrophs: a pivotal role for cytokinins? Trends Plant Sci. 11, 581–586 (2006).
Navarro, L. et al. DELLAs Control Plant Immune Responses by Modulating the Balance of Jasmonic Acid and Salicylic Acid Signaling. Curr. Biol. 18, 650–655 (2008).
Kazan, K. & Manners, J. M. Linking development to defense: auxin in plant-pathogen interactions. Trends Plant Sci. 14, 373–382 (2009).
Ton, J., Flors, V. & Mauch-Mani, B. The multifaceted role of ABA in disease resistance. Trends Plant Sci. 14, 310–317 (2009).
Zhang, W., Dick, W. A. & Hoitink, H. A. J. Compost-Induced Systemic Acquired Resistance in Cucumber to Pythium Root Rot and Anthracnose. 1066–1070 (1996).
Pieterse, C. M. J., Van der Does, D., Zamioudis, C., Leon-Reyes, A. & Van Wees, S. C. M. Hormonal Modulation of Plant Immunity. Annu. Rev. Cell Dev. Biol. 28, 489–521 (2012).
Chowdhury, S. P. et al. Cyclic lipopeptides of iBacillus amyloliquefaciens/i subsp. iplantarum/i colonizing the lettuce rhizosphere enhance plant defence responses towards the bottom rot pathogen iRhizoctonia solani/i. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 28, 17–18 (2015).
Thimmaraju Rudrappa, M. L. Biedrzycki, sridhara G. Kunjeti, 1 Nicole M. Donofrio, Kirk J. Czymmek, W., P., Paré & Bais, and harsh p. The rhizobacterial elicitor acetoin induces systemic resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Commun. Integr. Biol. 3, 130–138 (2010).
Beris, D., Theologidis, I., Skandalis, N. & Vassilakos, N. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain MBI600 induces salicylic acid dependent resistance in tomato plants against Tomato spotted wilt virus and Potato virus Y. Sci. Rep. 8, 10320 (2018).
Wang, Y., Ohara, Y., Nakayashiki, H., Tosa, Y. & Mayama, S. Microarray Analysis of the Gene Expression Profile Induced by the Endophytic Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria, Pseudomonas fluorescens FPT9601-T5 in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 18, 385–396 (2005).
Lakshmanan, V., Castaneda, R., Rudrappa, T. & Bais, H. P. Root transcriptome analysis of Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to beneficial Bacillus subtilis FB17 rhizobacteria revealed genes for bacterial recruitment and plant defense independent of malate efflux. Planta 238, 657–668 (2013).
Beckers, G. J. & Conrath, U. Priming for stress resistance: from the lab to the field. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 10, 425–431 (2007).
Wang, Y. et al. Comparative transcriptome analysis of tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) in response to exogenous abscisic acid. BMC Genomics 14, 841 (2013).
Cutler, S. R., Rodriguez, P. L., Finkelstein, R. R. & Abrams, S. R. Abscisic Acid: Emergence of a Core Signaling Network. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 61, 651–679 (2010).
Chan, Z. Expression profiling of ABA pathway transcripts indicates crosstalk between abiotic and biotic stress responses in Arabidopsis. Genomics 100, 110–115 (2012).
Singh, A., Jha, S. K., Bagri, J. & Pandey, G. K. ABA inducible rice protein phosphatase 2C confers ABA insensitivity and abiotic stress tolerance in Arabidopsis. PLoS One 10, e0125168 (2015).
Hu, W. et al. The core regulatory network of the abscisic acid pathway in banana: genome-wide identification and expression analyses during development, ripening, and abiotic stress. BMC Plant Biol. 17, 145 (2017).
Woodward, A. W. & Bartel, B. Auxin: regulation, action, and interaction. Ann. Bot. 95, 707–35 (2005).
Staswick, P. E. et al. Characterization of an Arabidopsis enzyme family that conjugates amino acids to indole-3-acetic acid. Plant Cell 17, 616–27 (2005).
Ding, X. et al. Activation of the indole-3-acetic acid-amido synthetase GH3-8 suppresses expansin expression and promotes salicylate- and jasmonate-independent basal immunity in rice. Plant Cell 20, 228–40 (2008).
Cosgrove, D. J. Plant expansins: diversity and interactions with plant cell walls. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 25, 162–72 (2015).
Marowa, P., Ding, A. & Kong, Y. Expansins: roles in plant growth and potential applications in crop improvement. Plant Cell Rep. 35, 949–65 (2016).
Li, F. et al. Drought tolerance through over-expression of the expansin gene TaEXPB23 in transgenic tobacco. J. Plant Physiol. 168, 960–966 (2011).
Zörb, C., Mühling, K. H., Kutschera, U. & Geilfus, C.-M. Salinity stiffens the epidermal cell walls of salt-stressed maize leaves: is the epidermis growth-restricting? PLoS One 10, e0118406 (2015).
Xu, Q., Xu, X., Shi, Y., Xu, J. & Huang, B. Transgenic tobacco plants overexpressing a grass PpEXP1 gene exhibit enhanced tolerance to heat stress. PLoS One 9, e100792 (2014).
Ruduś, I., Sasiak, M. & Kępczyński, J. Regulation of ethylene biosynthesis at the level of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate oxidase (ACO) gene. Acta Physiol. Plant. 35, 295–307 (2013).
Van Wees, S. C., Van der Ent, S. & Pieterse, C. M. Plant immune responses triggered by beneficial microbes. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 11, 443–448 (2008).
Choudhary, D. K. & Johri, B. N. Interactions of Bacillus spp. and plants - With special reference to induced systemic resistance (ISR). Microbiol. Res. 164, 493–513 (2009).
Lorenzo, O. ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTOR1 Integrates Signals from Ethylene and Jasmonate Pathways in Plant Defense. Plant Cell Online 15, 165–178 (2003).
Müller, M. & Munné-Bosch, S. Ethylene Response Factors: A Key Regulatory Hub in Hormone and Stress Signaling. Plant Physiol. 169, 32–41 (2015).
Zhou, J., Tang, X. & Martin, G. B. The Pto kinase conferring resistance to tomato bacterial speck disease interacts with proteins that bind a cis-element of pathogenesis-related genes nine classes of PR gene mRNAs is associated with the resistance response induced by necrotizing pathogens. The EMBO Journal 16 (1997).
Thara, V. K., Tang, X., Gu, Y. Q., Martin, G. B. & Zhou, J. M. Pseudomonas syringae pv tomato induces the expression of tomato EREBP-like genes Pti4 and Pti5 independent of ethylene, salicylate and jasmonate. Plant J, https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.1999.00619.x (1999).
Gu, Y.-Q. et al. Tomato Transcription Factors Pti4, Pti5, and Pti6 Activate Defense Responses When Expressed in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 14, 817–831 (2002).
Zhu, Z. et al. Derepression of ethylene-stabilized transcription factors (EIN3/EIL1) mediates jasmonate and ethylene signaling synergy in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 108, 12539–44 (2011).
Gadea, J., Mayda, M., Conejero, V. & Vera, P. Characterization of defense-related genes ectopically expressed in viroid-infected tomato plants. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 9, 409–415 (1996).
Heitz, T., Bergey, D. R. & Ryan, C. A. A gene encoding a chloroplast-targeted lipoxygenase in tomato leaves is transiently induced by wounding, systemin, and methyl jasmonate. Plant Physiol. 114, 1085–93 (1997).
Zhao, Y. et al. Virulence systems of Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato promote bacterial speck disease in tomato by targeting the jasmonate signaling pathway. Plant J. 36, 485–499 (2003).
Yan, L. et al. Role of Tomato Lipoxygenase D in Wound-Induced Jasmonate Biosynthesis and Plant Immunity to Insect Herbivores. 9 (2013).
Kachroo, A. & Kachroo, P. Fatty Acid–Derived Signals in Plant Defense. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080508-081820 (2009).
Zhang, J. et al. Arabidopsis fatty acid desaturase FAD2 is required for salt tolerance during seed germination and early seedling growth. PLoS One 7 (2012).
Ongena, M. et al. Stimulation of the lipoxygenase pathway is associated with systemic resistance induced in bean by a nonpathogenic Pseudomonas strain. Mol. Plant. Microbe. Interact. 17, 1009–1018 (2004).
Wager, A. & Browse, J. Social network: JAZ protein interactions expand our knowledge of jasmonate signaling. 3, 1–11 (2012).
Fowler, J. H. et al. Leucine Aminopeptidase Regulates Defense and Wound Signaling in Tomato Downstream of Jasmonic Acid. Plant Cell Online, https://doi.org/10.1105/tpc.108.065029 (2009).
Chen, H., Gonzales-Vigil, E., Wilkerson, C. G. & Howe, G. A. Stability of Plant Defense Proteins in the Gut of Insect Herbivores. Plant Physiol, https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.095588 (2007).
Chen, H., Wilkerson, C. G., Kuchar, J. A., Phinney, B. S. & Howe, G. A. From The Cover: Jasmonate-inducible plant enzymes degrade essential amino acids in the herbivore midgut. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci, https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0509026102 (2005).
Hildmann, T. et al. General Roles of Abscisic and Jasmonic Acids in Gene Activation as a Result of Mechanical Wounding. Plant Cell 4, 57–1 (1992).
Samach, A., Hareven, D., Gutfinger, T., Ken-Dror, S. & Lifschitz, E. Biosynthetic threonine deaminase gene of tomato: Isolation, structure, and upregulation in floral organs (threonine dehydratase). Dev. Biol. 88, 2678–2682 (1991).
Kang, J. H. & Baldwin, I. T. Isolation and characterization of the threonine deaminase promoter in Nicotiana attenuata. Plant Sci, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plantsci.2006.05.005 (2006).
Valueva, T. A. et al. Effects of elicitors on the accumulation of proteinase inhibitors in injured potato tubers. Appl. Biochem. Microbiol, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010206309896 (2001).
Ryan, C. A. Protease Inhibitors in Plants: Genes for Improving Defenses Against Insects and Pathogens. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.py.28.090190.002233 (1990).
Xiang, C. & Oliver, D. J. Glutathione Metabolic Genes Coordinately Respond to Heavy Metals and Jasmonic Acid in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 10 (1998).
Yuan, L.-B. et al. Jasmonate Regulates Plant Responses to Postsubmergence Reoxygenation through Transcriptional Activation of Antioxidant Synthesis. Plant Physiol. 173, 1864–1880 (2017).
Islam, S., Rahman, I. A., Islam, T. & Ghosh, A. Genome-wide identification and expression analysis of glutathione S-transferase gene family in tomato: Gaining an insight to their physiological and stress-specific roles. PLoS One 12 (2017).
Kazan, K. & Manners, J. M. MYC2: The master in action. Mol. Plant, https://doi.org/10.1093/mp/sss128 (2013).
Yuan, Y. et al. Functional analysis of rice NPR1-like genes reveals that OsNPR1/NH1 is the rice orthologue conferring disease resistance with enhanced herbivore susceptibility. Plant Biotechnol. J. 5, 313–324 (2007).
Caarls, L., Pieterse, C. M. J. & Van Wees, S. C. M. How salicylic acid takes transcriptional control over jasmonic acid signaling. Front. Plant Sci. 6, 170 (2015).
Mishina, T. E. & Zeier, J. Pathogen-associated molecular pattern recognition rather than development of tissue necrosis contributes to bacterial induction of systemic acquired resistance in Arabidopsis. Plant J. 50, 500–513 (2007).
Wiermer, M., Feys, B. J. & Parker, J. E. Plant immunity: the EDS1 regulatory node. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 8, 383–389 (2005).
Onate-Sanchez, L., Anderson, J. P., Young, J. & Singh, K. B. AtERF14, a Member of the ERF Family of Transcription Factors, Plays a Nonredundant Role in Plant Defense. Plant Physiol. 143, 400–409 (2007).
Pre, M. et al. The AP2/ERF Domain Transcription Factor ORA59 Integrates Jasmonic Acid and Ethylene Signals in Plant Defense. Plant Physiol. 147, 1347–1357 (2008).
Penninckx, A. M. A. et al. Pathogen-lnduced Systemic Activation of a Plant Defensin Gene in Arabidopsis Follows a Salicylic Acid-lndependent Pathway. The Plant Cell 8 (1996).
Lorenzo, O., Piqueras, R., Sánchez-Serrano, J. J. & Solano, R. ETHYLENE RESPONSE FACTOR1 Integrates Signals from Ethylene and Jasmonate Pathways in Plant Defense. Plant Cell 15, 165–178 (2003).
Li, L. & Steffens, J. C. Overexpression of polyphenol oxidase in transgenic tomato plants results in enhanced bacterial disease resistance. Planta, https://doi.org/10.1007/s00425-002-0750-4 (2002).
Christensen, A. B. et al. The Germinlike Protein GLP4 Exhibits Superoxide Dismutase Activity and Is an Important Component of Quantitative Resistance in Wheat and Barley. 17 (2004).
Lu, M., Han, Y.-P., Gao, J.-G., Wang, X.-J. & Li, W.-B. Identification and analysis of the germin-like gene family in soybean. BMC Genomics 11, 620 (2010).
Zimmermann, G., Bäumlein, H., Mock, H.-P., Himmelbach, A. & Schweizer, P. The multigene family encoding germin-like proteins of barley. Regulation and function in Basal host resistance. Plant Physiol. 142, 181–92 (2006).
NOCTOR, G. et al. Glutathione in plants: an integrated overview. Plant. Cell Environ. 35, 454–484 (2012).
Meichtry, J., Amrhein, N. & Schaller, A. Characterization of the subtilase gene family in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.). Plant Mol. Biol, https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006193414434 (1999).
Tripathi, L. P. & Sowdhamini, R. Cross genome comparisons of serine proteases in Arabidopsis and rice. BMC Genomics, https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-7-200 (2006).
Jordá, L., Coego, A., Conejero, V. & Vera, P. A genomic cluster containing four differentially regulated subtilisin-like processing protease genes is in tomato plants. J. Biol. Chem. 274, 2360–5 (1999).
Ramírez, V., López, A., Mauch-Mani, B., Gil, M. J. & Vera, P. An Extracellular Subtilase Switch for Immune Priming in Arabidopsis. PLoS Pathog. 9, e1003445 (2013).
Frei, N. et al. Functional analysis of Arabidopsis immune-related MAPKs uncovers a role for MPK3 as negative regulator of inducible defences. Genome Biol. 15, 1–22 (2014).
Skandalis, N. et al. Effect of Pyraclostrobin Application on Viral and Bacterial Diseases of Tomato. Plant Dis. 100, 1321–1330 (2016).
Rotenberg, D., Thompson, T. S., German, T. L. & Willis, D. K. Methods for effective real-time RT-PCR analysis of virus-induced gene silencing. 138, 49–59 (2006).
Steibel, J. P., Poletto, R., Coussens, P. M. & Rosa, G. J. M. A powerful and flexible linear mixed model framework for the analysis of relative quantification RT-PCR data. Genomics 94, 146–152 (2009).
Ruijter, J. M., Ruiz Villalba, A., Hellemans, J., Untergasser, A. & van den Hoff, M. J. B. Removal of between-run variation in a multi-plate qPCR experiment. Biomol. Detect. Quantif. 5, 10–14 (2015).
Brazma, A. et al. Minimum information about a microarray experiment (MIAME)— toward standards for microarray data. 29, 365–371 (2001).
Katsarou, K., Mavrothalassiti, E., Dermauw, W., Van, T. & Kalantidis, K. Combined Activity of DCL2 and DCL3 Is Crucial in the Defense against Potato Spindle Tuber Viroid. 1–24, https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.ppat.1005936 (2016).
Ritchie, M. E. et al. limma powers differential expression analyses for RNA-sequencing and microarray studies. 43 (2015).
Kanehisa, M. & Goto, S. KEGG: Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes. Nucleic Acids Reasearch 28, 27–30 (2000).
Kanehisa, M., Sato, Y., Furumichi, M., Morishima, K. & Tanabe, M. New approach for understanding genome variations in KEGG. Nucleic Acids Reasearch 47, 590–595 (2019).
Kanehisa, M. Toward understanding the origin and evolution of cellular organisms. Protein Sci. 28, 1947–1951 (2019).
Acknowledgements
This work was funded by BASF SE. We thank Andrew Brown for advice on Serifel application. Microarray hybridization was performed by Thomas Van Leeuwen at Ghent University.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
A.D. participated in design and carrying out of experiments, writing of the original draft; I.T. participated in design of experiments, writing of the original draft and statistical analysis; B.L. participated in methodology; K.K. and N.V. participated in methodology, interpretation of results; N.S. was responsible for conceptualization, funding acquisition, project administration, resources, investigation, methodology, supervision, writing of the original draft. All authors reviewed the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Dimopoulou, A., Theologidis, I., Liebmann, B. et al. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens MBI600 differentially induces tomato defense signaling pathways depending on plant part and dose of application. Sci Rep 9, 19120 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55645-2
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-55645-2
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
Prospects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens (MZ945930) Mediated Enhancement of Capsicum annuum L. Plants Under Stress of Alternaria alternata in Terms of Physiological Traits, Thiol Content, Antioxidant Defense, and Phytohormones
Journal of Plant Growth Regulation (2024)
-
Cytokinin-microbiome interactions regulate developmental functions
Environmental Microbiome (2022)
-
Endophytes Bacillus amyloliquefaciens AW3 (CGMCC1.16683) improves the growth of Populus davidiana × Populus bolleana (PdPap) and induces its resistance to wilt disease by Fusarium oxysporum Fox68 (CFCC86068)
European Journal of Plant Pathology (2022)
-
Transcriptional regulation of cell growth and reprogramming of systemic response in wheat (Triticum turgidum subsp. durum) seedlings by Bacillus paralicheniformis TRQ65
Planta (2022)
-
Phytostimulation and biocontrol potential of Gram-positive endospore-forming Bacilli
Planta (2021)