Skip to main content
PLOS One logoLink to PLOS One
. 2023 Oct 31;18(10):e0287899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287899

New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)

Mahmodol Hasan 1,*, Motaher Hossain 2,*, Daohong Jiang 3
Editor: Eugenio Llorens4
PMCID: PMC10617699  PMID: 37906546

Abstract

Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) is the world’s third most important edible oilseed crop after soybean and palm. The clubroot disease caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae poses a significant risk and causes substantial yield losses in rapeseed. In this study, 13 endophytic fungal strains were isolated from the healthy roots of rapeseed (B. napus) grown in a clubroot-infested field and molecularly identified. Based on germination inhibition of resting spores of P. brassicae, two endophytic fungal antagonists, Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 were selected to evaluate their potential for plant growth promotion and biocontrol of P. brassicae. The Trichoderma isolates were applied as a soil drench (1×107 spore/g soil) to a planting mix and field soil, in which plants were grown under non-infested and P. brassicae-infested (2×106 spore/g soil) conditions. The endophytic fungi were able to promote plant growth, significantly increasing shoot and root length, leaf diameter, and biomass production (shoots and root weight) both in the absence or presence of P. brassicae. The single and dual treatments with the endophytes were equally effective in significantly decreasing the root-hair infection, root index, and clubroot severity index. Both ReTk1 and ReTv2 inhibited the germination of resting spores of P. brassicae in root exudates. Moreover, the endophytic fungi colonized the roots of rapeseed extensively and possibly induced host resistance by up-regulated expression of defense-related genes involved in jasmonate (BnOPR2), ethylene (BnACO and BnSAM3), phenylpropanoid (BnOPCL and BnCCR), auxin (BnAAO1) and salicylic acid (BnPR2) pathways. Based on these findings, it is evident that the rapeseed root endophytes Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 could suppress the gall formation on rapeseed roots via antibiosis, induced systemic resistance (ISR), and/or systemic acquired resistance (SAR). According to our knowledge, this is the first report of the endophytic Trichoderma spp. isolated from root tissues of healthy rapeseed plants (B. napus.), promoting plant growth and reducing clubroot severity.

Introduction

Rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) is one of the most important culinary oilseed crops predominantly grown in most of Asia and Europe, New Zealand and Canada. It is the third major source of vegetable oil in the world after soybeans and palm and is also becoming an increasingly popular ingredient in bio-diesel production [1]. Clubroot, caused by the obligate parasite Plasmodiophora brassicae Woronin, is one of the most severe soilborne diseases of rapeseed (B. napus) and other cruciferous plants worldwide [2]. It is gradually becoming a threat to rapeseed production in many countries like Canada, New Zealand, China, and the Philippines [35]. The increase in farming areas and proximal crop rotation are factors in the rise in clubroot [2]. P. brassicae is an obligate biotrophic pathogen that can cause intracellular infection in the roots. When rapeseed roots become infected, the root cells begin to grow abnormally, forming lumps that resemble tumours [6]. Clubroot infection prevents the normal absorption of water and nutrients, resulting in loss of vitality and stunting of the plant. The damage in oilseed rape ranges from 10% to a complete yield loss, including plant and seed losses [7]. Recent works have extensively described the disease development and cellular alterations in the host plants after infection [8, 9]. The life cycle of the pathogen is complex and comprises two significant phases. In the first phase, dormant spores of P. brassicae penetrate root hairs and epidermal cells, forming primary plasmodia. In the second phase, primary plasmodia of P. brassicae release secondary zoospores, which penetrate the root cortex and form galls. The fully developed secondary plasmodia in the root cortex can produce thick-walled dormant spores, which survive for many years without a host in soil [10], making the disease difficult to control. Chemical control is not necessarily practical or economically feasible to manage the disease. Therefore, exploring other sustainable ways to tackle this disease efficiently is necessary.

Applying biological control strategies could particularly aid in controlling club root pathogen [11]. Biocontrol agents that have been explored against clubroot pathogen include endophytic bacteria or fungi [11, 12]. Endophytic microorganisms grow and develop entirely within their host plant tissues [13]. Possible plant benefits of endophytic colonization include increased plant growth, improved tolerance to abiotic stresses and reduced pest and diseases [1316]. Among these beneficial microorganisms, the fungal genus Trichoderma has been extensively studied as a plant growth promoter, inducer of abiotic stresses and biological control agent of plant pathogens in many plant species, including rapeseed [1723]. For instance, inoculating rapeseed plants with Trichoderma atroviride enhanced the growth characteristics and yield of two rapeseed cultivars, particularly under high levels of copper in the soil [24]. The application of Trichoderma harzianum increased seed weight and played a key role in the induction of systemic defense against the fungal pathogen in rapeseed plants [25]. The concurrent application of Trichoderma harzianum and an arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus to Arabidopsis and rapeseed roots resulted in a significant increase in colonization by both fungi and enhanced productivity in both Brassicaceae species [26]. Trichoderma parareesei favours the tolerance of rapeseed to salinity and drought [27]. In several studies, Trichoderma strains have been proven effective as biological control agents for P. brassicae in cruciferous and Brassicaceae plant species. Experiments conducted in greenhouse pots revealed that T. harzianum strain T4 had a control efficiency of around 79% against P. brassicae in Chinese cabbage [28]. Likewise, the antifungal properties of the T. harzianum strain LTR-2 were demonstrated in Chinese cabbage grown in the field. The incidence of the disease was reduced from 96.7% (untreated control) to 51.3% (seeds treated with spores of T. harzianum LTR-2) [29]. Another study has demonstrated the biocontrol effect of two strains of Trichoderma against P. brassicae in Arabidopsis and rapeseed, with the Hz36 strain having the maximum biocontrol efficiency on clubroot for rapeseed (44.29%) and Arabidopsis (52.18%), respectively [30]. The disease reduction occurs without risking the environment, demonstrating that utilizing Trichoderma is beneficial in managing clubroot.

Biocontrol by Trichoderma against fungal phytopathogens is achieved through a number of direct and indirect mechanisms such as mycoparasitism, competition for resources and space, modification of microbial community, promotion of plant growth, induction of plant defensive mechanisms and antibiosis [3135]. Trichoderma can produce secondary metabolites that could significantly inhibit the germination of resting spores of P. brassicae [30]. Release of elicitors by Trichoderma may transduce various signals within the plant, such as salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), or ethylene (ET), leading to the elicitation of the plant defense responses against the pathogen [3234]. These mechanisms are part of a multiple-component action exerted by Trichoderma to achieve effective biocontrol under various environmental conditions. Although Trichoderma encompasses several endophytic species, a few have been investigated to improve clubroot management. Therefore, the present work was undertaken to identify endophytic Trichoderma antagonists to control P. brassicae, the causal agent of clubroot of rapeseed. Moreover, their ability to colonize roots and induce defense responses in rapeseed was also explored. This study aimed to locate new prospective candidates with a deeper understanding of their mode of action for use as clubroot biocontrol in rapeseed.

Materials and methods

Isolation and identification of endophytic fungi from roots of rapeseed

To isolate the endophytic fungi, healthy rapeseed root samples were collected from a clubroot infested field in Zhejiang, Hubei province, PR China. Additional clubbed root samples were also collected from the same field to extract resting spores of P. brassicae for subsequent use in this experiment. The collected healthy roots were washed in tap water to remove any soil particles, then immersed in 75% ethanol (vol/vol) for 60 sec, followed by 5 min dipping in 2.5% NaOCl (vol/vol), and finally rinsed three times in sterile distilled water. Twenty surface-sterilized roots (young and old) were aseptically cut into 0.5 cm lengths (avoiding root tips) for a total of 285 segments and transferred to potato dextrose agar (PDA) plates (three pieces in each plate) supplemented with Cef (50 μg/ml) to prevent bacterial growth. A total of 95 plates were sealed with parafilm to avoid desiccation. Plates were incubated at 25°C for 14 days, and hyphae developing from the segments were observed regularly. The fungi growing on root segments were then transferred to fresh PDA, and finally, the isolates were purified by single spore culture. To purify non-sporulating fungal isolates, hyphal tip culture was performed. The fungal isolates were initially identified based on cultural and morphological characteristics, viz. colony pigments, conidial morphology, and conidiophores structures.

Identification with fungal ITS amplification and sequencing

Twenty-five fungal isolates were grown on cellophane membranes placed on the PDA plates, and DNA was extracted according to the standard procedure [36]. The fungal ribosomal DNA (rDNA) internal transcribed spacer (ITS) regions 1 and 2 were amplified by PCR using primers ITS1-F (5’-TCCGTAGGTGAACCTGCGG-3’) and ITS4-R (5’-TCCTCCGCTTATTGATATGC-3’) [37]. The reaction products were separated in 1.0% (wt/vol) agarose gel, and the amplicons were purified using a gel band purification kit (Axygen Incorporation, China). The PCR product was then ligated into a pMD18-T vector and transformed into Escherichia coli JM109 (Promega) according to the manufacturer’s instructions, resulting in clone libraries. The transformants were plated on LB agar plates containing 50 μg/ml kanamycin, streptomycin, and rifampicin. Finally, the randomly selected positive clones were sequenced in an ABI 3730 sequencer (Applied Biosystems, United States) using the Primer M13F. The final sequence sets were submitted to BLAST analysis and compared to the most closely related strains. The endophytes were considered conspecific at a threshold identity of ≥99%. Therefore, 13 isolates were identified up to genus based on their sequence identity. To verify the phylogenetic position of Trichoderma genotypes, sequences of candidates isolates and the corresponding best BLAST hits were aligned by Clustal X and manually corrected in GENEDOC. Neighbor-joining (NJ) tree was built with the MEGA 11 software package using a Kimura two-parameter (K2P) model [38], and the stability of clades was tested using 1,000 bootstrap replications.

Selection of endophytes for biocontrol activity

To identify fungal endophytes with biocontrol activity against the pathogen, isolated endophytes were tested for their ability to inhibit the germination of P. brassicae resting spores, as described in the later section “Effect of Trichoderma on the resting spore germination of P. brassicae” of this manuscript. Moreover, the temperature requirements of the fungi were determined by monitoring their growth at 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35°C.

Effect of Trichoderma on growth promotion of rapeseed

Two sets of experiments were performed, one with field soil and another with soilless planting mix, to evaluate the growth promotion potentials of each Trichoderma isolate. Plastic pots (10.5 cm × 9.0 cm) were filled separately with soilless planting mix and field soil. Before seeding, each pot was inoculated with either ReTk1 or ReTv2 by applying 25 mL (1×107 conidia/mL) of their spore suspension to the potting media. Followingly, P. brassicae spores were added to the potting media at a rate of 1× 107 spores per gram of medium. Immediately after inoculation, 4 seeds of rapeseed were sown in each pot at equidistance from each other. Plants grown without inoculation with Trichoderma were regarded as controls. The experiment used a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with individual trials as the blocking factor. Each treatment consisted of 60 plants, and each trial was replicated thrice. After seeding, the pots were arranged randomly on a holding rack in a greenhouse at 20–23°C with a 14-h photoperiod (512 μmol m-2 s-1). At the end of the experiment (42 days after seeding), plant growth parameters such as first true leaf diameter (25 days after seeding), shoot length, root length, shoot weight, and root weight were recorded. Similar experiments were conducted with the model plant Arabidopsis thaliana using a soilless planting mix as a growth medium.

Effect of Trichoderma on the resting spore germination of P. brassicae

Clubroot galls were collected from infested rapeseed fields of Hubei province to prepare resting spores as described above. After removing soil particles by washing, the galls were air-dried and stored at -80°C until required. To extract resting spores, about 5 g of dried galls were soaked in 150 mL distilled water for 2 h to soften the tissue and then macerated in a blender machine at high speed for 2 min. The slurry was filtered through eight layers of cheesecloth, and the spore concentration was approximated using a hemocytometer. The crude resting spore suspension was used for the inoculation of soil. On the other hand, a part of the resting spores of P. brassicae was purified by gradient centrifugation as described by Suzuki et al. [39] with minor modification and adjusted to 107 spores/ ml with sterile distilled water.

To collect root exudates, seeds of rapeseed were germinated by incubation on moistened filter paper for three days. Three-day-old seedlings were transferred to Hoagland solution in plastic cups (150 ml solution). The seedlings were grown in a growth chamber at 22°C for 14 days. After the removal of seedlings from the cups, root exudate solution (RES) was collected, filter-sterilized using a biofilter (pore size 0.22 μm), and kept at 4°C until use.

To prepare culture filtrates of Trichoderma spp., flasks containing PDB (250 mL) were inoculated with agar discs of ReTk1 and ReTv2 and incubated on rotary shakers at 180 rpm and 25°C for 6 days. After centrifuging at 4000 rpm for 15 min, the culture filtrates were collected.

To assay the effect of Trichoderma ReTk1 and ReTv2 on the inhibition of germination of the resting spores of P. brassicae, 5 ml of root exudates, 0.5 ml purified resting spore suspension and 1.0 ml culture filtrate from ReTk1 and ReTv2 were added to a sterile tube and the pH was adjusted to 6.3, with three replications. Culture filtrate replaced by an equal amount of PDB was treated as a control. The tubes were incubated at 24°C for up to 6 days in darkness. The microscopic examination of resting spore germination was done at 2, 4, and 6 days by staining with 1% orcein-acetic acid, according to Naiki et al. [40]. The germinated spores were considered empty under a light microscope, in contrast to red non-germinated spores.

Effect of Trichoderma spp. on root hair infection and clubroot severity caused by P. brassicae

The experiment was conducted using field soil and soilless planting mix in the greenhouse. Plastic pots (10.5 cm /9.0 cm) were filled with field soil and soilless planting mix (pH 5.5–7.5; Peilei Technology Development Company, Zhen Jiang, China), which were later saturated with acidified water (2 M HCl) to adjust the pH at 6.3. Two days before seeding, the potting medium in each pot was inoculated with 5 mL of a P. brassicae suspension (1 × 107 resting spores /mL) to produce an infestation level of about 2 × 106 spores/g of growth medium. The conidial suspensions (25 mL, 1 × 107 conidia mL-1) of ReTk1 and ReTv2 were applied as a soil drench immediately after seeding of rapeseed (Cv. Hua you za 62) seeds (4 seeds/pot). Control treatment received 25 mL water only. The experiment was conducted following randomised complete block design (RCBD) with individual trials as the blocking factor. Seeded pots were arranged randomly on a holding rack and placed in a greenhouse at 20–23°C with a 14-h photoperiod (512 μmol m-2 s-1). Each treatment consisted of 60 plants in a trial, and each trial was replicated at three different times, with all materials prepared each time independently.

Roots of randomly sampled three treated plants were uprooted 7 and 14 days after seeding (DAS), washed thoroughly to remove all soil particles, rinsed three times in sterile distilled water, cut into 1 cm pieces, and fixed in 70% ethanol until use. Roots of untreated control plants (pathogen-inoculated only) were processed similarly. Treatment-wise, the root pieces were stained overnight with aceto-carmine (1%) and observation was done using a light microscope for the presence of primary plasmodia or zoosporangia in root hairs. Up to 40 root hairs were checked for each plant, and the incidence of infection was calculated.

The rest of the plants were maintained in the greenhouse for 6 weeks and watered as necessary. At the end of the experiment (42 DAS), disease severity was assessed according to Klewer et al. [41] using a 0–4 scale, where 0 = no symptoms, 1 = very small clubs, mainly on lateral roots that do not impair the main root, 2 = small clubs covering the main root and few lateral roots, 3 = medium-sized to bigger clubs, also including the main root, plant growth might be impaired, 4 = severe clubs in lateral, main root or rosette, fine roots were completely destroyed, plant growth was affected. The disease severity index (DSI) was calculated using the formula: DSI = (1n1 + 2n2 + 3n3 + 4n4) x 100/4Nt, where n1–n4 is the number of plants in the indicated class and Nt is the total number of plants tested.

Application timing of Trichoderma spp. targeting primary and secondary zoospores of P. brassicae

An experiment was conducted to determine the optimal timing for applying ReTk1 and ReTv2 to target primary and secondary zoospores of P. brassicae. The detailed treatment layout is shown in Table 3. ReTk1 and ReTv2 or water (control) were applied as a soil drench to pathogen-infested field soil and planting mix at seeding time. Seedlings were uprooted 7 and 14 DAS, and, after rigorous washing, transplanted into a non-infested medium treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2 or water only (control). The effect of Trichoderma spp. on infection caused by primary and secondary zoospores was determined. This experimental plan was based on the peak of root-hair infection (RHI) and release of secondary zoospores under optimal temperature conditions, as reported by Sharma et al. [42].

Table 3. Effect of application timing of Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 on clubroot severity index in field soil.

Inoculation/Treatment timing Mean clubroot severity index
Field soil Planting mix
At seeding At transplanting Transplanted at 7DAS Transplanted at 14DAS Transplanted at 7DAS Transplanted at 14DAS
Pb+Water Water 61.05±1.45a* 62.89.05±2.48a 55.90±4.10a 57.74±1.17a
Pb+ReTk1 Water 21.87±3.12b 17.03±2.97b 18.54±0.90b 19.68±2.18bc
Pb+ReTv2 Water 14.75±1.42bc 14.50±0.87b 14.65±2.9b 15.74±2.11bc
Pb+ Water Pb+ReTk1 18.03±2.41bc 22.11±2.88b 18.55±1.89b 24.03±0.96b
Pb+ Water Pb+ReTv2 13.05±1.52c 14.85±3.32b 12.38±1.27b 14.44±3.7bc
Pb+ReTk1 Pb+ReTk1 15.41±2.21bc 16.75±2.69b 16.66±3.33b 19.7±3.6bc
Pb+ReTv2 Pb+ReTv2 10.83±2.5c 13.45±1.92b 10.20±0.20b 11.32±0.21c
Significance level (P) *** *** *** ***

***P<0.001

*Data are means ± standard error from a representative experiment. Each value represents the average of three replicates. Mean values with the same letters are not significantly different: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test; P<0.05.

Examination of rapeseed-root colonization by Trichoderma spp.

Transformation of rfp gene into Trichoderma spp.

Strain EHA105 of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and binary vector pCHMC (promoter EF-1α) with a backbone of pCAMBIA1301 and PtrpC::hph from vector pSKH were used for ReTk1 & ReTv2 transformation. The method used for transformation was followed by Qin et al. [43] with some modifications. ReTk1 and ReTv2 were cultured in PDA slants for 5–7 days, and then the colony surface was washed with sterile double-distilled H2O (ddH2O). The spore suspension was passed through two layers of cheesecloth to remove mycelial debris and then centrifuged at 4400 rpm for 10 min to pellet the spores. The pellets were stored at 4°C for less than 1 h. To co-cultivate Trichoderma spp. (ReTk1 and ReTv2) and A. tumefaciens, spore pellets of ReTk1 and ReTv2 were re-suspended with prepared bacterial cell suspension. The spore concentration was adjusted to 1 × 107 spores/ml. An aliquot of 200 μl of spore-bacterial cell mixture was transferred and spread onto a cellophane membrane covering the comedium (Co-IM) containing 400 μM of AS. After incubation at room temperature for 2 days in dark conditions, the membrane was transferred to a sterile empty plate. Then it was covered with 20 ml of cooled PDA containing 500 ug/ml of cephalosporin to counter-select bacteria and 50 ug/ml of hygromycin to select Trichoderma transformants primarily. After incubation at 20–22°C for 3–4 days, the candidates were transferred to fresh PDA plates containing 100 ug/ml of hygromycin for a second round of selection. Transformant strains that expressed rfp and showed the same physiological and morphological characteristics as the wild-type in culture media were isolated, and two of the transformants, ReTktr-1(5) and ReTvtr-2(23), were chosen for CLSM analysis.

Inoculation of transformants into rapeseed root and microscopy

The transformants ReTktr-1(5) and ReTvtr-2 (23) germlings were obtained by inoculating 106 conidia/ml in 200 ml of potato dextrose broth (PDB) (Sigma, Madrid, Spain) and then further incubated for 15 h at 28°C at 200 rpm. The germinated conidia were centrifuged at 4,400 rpm for 10 min, washed three times with sterile distilled water, and diluted to 105 germlings/ml. Bunches of 10 rapeseed seedlings grown on MS media for 7 days were tied together and placed inside 250-ml flasks containing 150 ml of salt minimal medium MM [44] supplemented with 0.2% (w/v) glycerol as the sole carbon source and 20 mg ammonium sulfate/l. The roots of the rapeseed seedlings were submerged in the medium up to the hypocotyls. The flasks were then inoculated to a final concentration of 105 germlings/ml and incubated for 10–24 h at 22°C with shaking at 115 rpm for colonization studies. The same experiment but without inoculation of the fungus was treated as a control. Rapeseed roots colonized by transformants (ReTk1 & ReTv2) were taken from the hydroponic cultures after 10 and 24 h incubation, thoroughly washed with distilled water and microscopy was carried out in three independent experiments. A confocal lesser scanning microscope (CLSM) with a Leica TCS SP2 was used to study the plant-fungus interaction in vivo. The excitation wavelength was 488 nm (argon/krypton laser) and the emission wavelengths were 500–550 nm for RFP. A dichroic filter RSP 500 was also used. A panoramic view was obtained with a ×20 objective and detailed views with ×40 and ×63 objectives and a zoom factor. Images were acquired by Leica Confocal Software 2.5.

Relative expression of defence-related genes in rapeseed plants

At 14 DAS, roots from Trichoderma-treated rapeseed plants were removed and washed with running tap water and then rinsed in sterile distilled several times. RNA was extracted from the collected roots using the TRIzol reagent (Invitrogen, USA). RNA extracted from root samples of non-treated plants was used as a control. Contamination of DNA was removed by DNaseI treatment (RNase free) (TaKaRa, Dalian, China) according to the manufacturer’s instructions. Five micrograms of total RNA (free of DNA) were converted to cDNA using the RevertAidTM First-strand cDNA Synthesis kit (MBI, Fermentas, USA) following the manufacturer’s instructions. To examine the relative expression of plant defence-related genes involved in JA (BnOPR2), ET (BnACO and BnSAM3), phenylpropanoid (BnOPCL and BnCCR), auxin (BnAAO1) and SA (BnPR1, BnPR2 and BnPR5) pathways, qPCR was done using gene-specific primers (S1 Table in S1 File). An aliquot of a 1 μL cDNA sample, 10 μL SYBR Green I, 0.5 μL (50 nM) of each primer and 8 μL DEPC-treated water were brought to a total reaction volume of 20 μL. PCR amplification was carried out for each target gene on CFX96TM Real-Time System (Bio-Rad, USA) using previously reported PCR conditions [45, 46]. The relative expression ratio of a target gene was measured using STEPONE v. 2.1 software (Applied Biosystems) based on the differences in Ct of a sample versus the control. Differences between a treatment and the control in the relative expression of each gene were assessed for significance at P < 0.05.

Data analysis

All analyses were conducted in duplicate, with three replicates for each experiment. Data are expressed as the mean ± standard error. The results were analyzed using the SPSS statistical package (SPSS, Chicago, IL, USA). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to evaluate the treatments. When a significant treatment effect was found (P = 0.05), Duncan’s Multiple Range Test was used to determine the significant difference at P ≤0.05.

Results

Isolation and identification of endophytic fungi

A total of 25 isolates of endophytic fungi were recovered and purified from healthy and surface-sterilised root tissues of rapeseed. Some fungi readily sporulated on the PDA medium after 5–6 days of incubation in darkness at 25°C, while others did not produce any spores or conidia. Thirteen sporulating isolates were identified up to genus and/or species level based on their conidial morphology, conidiophore structure and other unique phenotypic characteristics. Finally, molecular identification was done based on rDNA ITS sequence analysis to confirm the reliability of morphological identification. Using NCBI BLAST, 13 different fungal genotypes with > 90% sequence similarity with the putative taxonomic affinity were identified (Table 1). One endophytic fungal isolate shared a 100% identical rDNA sequence with a previously uncultured organism.

Table 1. Closest rDNA sequence matches (BLASTN) of the endophytic fungal isolates.

Representative isolate code Putative taxonomic affinity Similarity (%) Score (Expected value) Gene bank accession number
ReR1 (Red) Talaromyces amestolkiae 100 1075 (0.0)  OQ975662
ReY1 Mucor hiemalis 99 1173 (0.0) OQ975663
ReBWF Pythium sp. 99 1080 (0.0) OQ975664
ReWCF Pythium spinosum 100 617 (Ie-173) OQ975665
ReBF1 Alternaria altenata 99 804 (0.0) OQ975666
ReWFL Fusarium oxysporum 99 1026 (0.0) OQ975667
ReP1 Penicillium sp. 100 1096 (0.0) OQ975668
ReFU Fusarium tricinctum 100 547 (Ie-152) OQ975669
ReScl Botryotinia fuckeliana 100 547 (Ie-152) OQ975670
ReP3 Sclerotinia sclerotiorum 91 721 (0.0) OQ975671
ReF4 Alternaria sp. 100 1064 OQ975672
ReTv2 Trichoderma sp. atroviride 99 1098 (0.0) OQ975673
ReTk1 Trichoderma sp. koningiopsis 99 1110 (0.0) OQ975674

Among the 13 fungal endophytes, isolates ReTk1 and ReTv2 were selected for biocontrol activity against P. brassicae as these two strains showed the highest inhibition (over 50% efficacy) of germination of the resting spores of P. brassicae. Moreover, the selected two isolates exhibited broad temperature requirements and abundant conidia production ability. The optimal temperature range for endophytes was between 20 and 30°C, while the fungi grew well over the temperature range of 15 to 35°C, indicating that both fungi are easily adaptable as biocontrol agents over a wide temperature range (S1A, S1B Fig in S1 File). Both strains produced septate, hyaline, and smooth-walled vegetative hyphae. The culture on PDA of ReTk1 strain was thick, dense, green without forming a concentric ring. On the other hand, the strain ReTv26 had a sparse and light culture. Conidia of both strains were one-celled, globose, smooth-walled, pale green forming on hyaline, smooth-walled branched and verticillate conidiophores morphological traits, the two selected strains were classified as Trichoderma. Sequence results obtained revealed that isolate ReTk1 and ReTv2 showed 99% sequence similarity with T. koningiopsis and T. atroviride, respectively. However, ITS sequences alone are insufficient for species-level identification of fungi, particularly Trichoderma strains, because multiple species share the same ITS sequence. Identification of Trichoderma strains at the species level should be aided by using additional loci such as rpb2 and tef1 [47]. Thus, ReTk1 and ReTv2 have been recognized as unconfirmed species of Trichoderma and described as Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 in the subsequent sections of the manuscript.

The root endophytic Trichoderma spp. promoted the growth of rapeseed

To assess the effect of TReTk1 and ReTv2 on plant growth, true leaf diameter was measured at 25 DAS, while the shoot length, root length, shoot weight, and root weight was evaluated at 42 DAS in comparison to the control. Both isolates significantly enhanced the leaf diameter of plants grown in field soil and planting mix compared to the untreated control. Similarly, TReTk1 and ReTv2-treated plants had significantly much longer root and shoot lengths than non-treated plants. In both field soil and planting mix trials, TReTk1 and ReTv2 inoculation significantly enhanced shoot and root biomass, resulting in a significantly higher fresh shoot and root weight than untreated controls (Fig 1).

Fig 1. Effect of endophytic fungi Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 inoculation on growth promotion of rapeseed.

Fig 1

The experiment was carried out under greenhouse conditions. Field soil and planting mix were inoculated with ReTk1 and ReTv2 (1x107 conidia/gm soil) by soil drench method. (A) The phenotypes of rapeseed plants without treatment (a) or treatment with ReTk1 (b) and ReTv2 (c). (B) The growth promotion of rapeseed plants. The proliferation of the first true leaf diameter was measured 25 days after seeding and other growth parameters were quantified 42 days after seeding. The mean average of six replications and capped lines represent standard error. The symbol “*” on top of the bar indicates a significant difference compared to the control at P<0.05.

Inhibition of Trichoderma spp. on the resting spore germination of P. brassicae

At the beginning of the spore reaction (0 days), the germination percentage of resting spores of P. brassicae was zero in all treatments. Two days after incubation, the proportion of germinated spores was higher in the controls than in the treatments with culture filtrates of ReTk1 and ReTv2. After four days, 73% spore germination was observed in the control treatments, whereas, ReTk1 and ReTv2 treatments displayed only 39.74 and 26.87% germination of the resting spores. Following six days of incubation, 100% of the resting spores germinated in the control treatments, compared to only 47.31 and 37.57% in the ReTk1 and ReTv2 treatments, respectively (Fig 2).

Fig 2. Inhibition of endophytic fungi Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 on resting spore germination of P. brassicae (Pb) in root exudate solution (RES).

Fig 2

RES amended with culture filtrates of ReTk1 & ReTv2 over six days incubation period. The germination of resting spores was counted by staining with orcein-acetic acid. Germinated spores were empty under light microscope, in contrast to red non-germinated spores (A). The germination also checked under CLSM (B). The black and yellow arrowheads in the figure indicate germinated and non-germinated resting spores, respectively. (C) The mean average of six replications and capped lines represent standard error. The symbol “*” on top of the bar indicates a significant difference compared to the control at P<0.05.

Trichoderma spp. suppressed clubroot severity of rapeseed

The biocontrol effect of endophytic fungi Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 on clubroot severity of rapeseed was evaluated in field soil and planting mix experiments. The percentage of root-hair infection (RHI) by P. brassicae was significantly reduced in plants grown in field soil and planting mix treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2 at 7 and 14 DAS, respectively, compared to untreated controls (water-treated and pathogen-inoculated only) (Fig 3). Compared to controls, isolate ReTk1 and ReTv2 reduced root infection at 7 and 14 DAS, respectively, in field soil and planting mix. The clubroot incidence and severity in plants grown in both field soil and planting mix were also effectively reduced by treatments with the fungal isolates. In plants grown as untreated controls in field soil and planting mix, respectively, the clubroot root incidence was 85.00% and 89.10%; however, it was reduced to 57.10 and 47.70%, and 44.0 and 42.30% in plants grown in field soil and planting mix and treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2, respectively (Table 2). The clubroot root severity index in untreated controls grown in field soil and planting mix was 64.00 and 62.50%, respectively, but it was 29.30 and 28.00% and 23.00 and 21.00% in plants treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2, respectively (Table 3).

Fig 3. Effect of Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 on infection of rapeseed root hairs by P. brassicae at 7 and 14 days after seeding (DAS).

Fig 3

Roots of three treated plants were uprooted, washed and rinsed to remove most of the microbes, cut into 1 cm pieces, and fixed in 70% ethanol. Roots of control plants (pathogen-inoculated only) were processed similarly. Root pieces were stained overnight with aceto-carmine (1%) and examined using a light microscope for the presence of primary plasmodia or zoosporangia in root hairs (arrowhead). Root hairs of control plants showing damage due to infection by P. brassicae (A). Root haris of ReTk1 (B) and ReTv2-treated (C) plants showing less damage to the roots due to infection by P. brassicae. Bars indicate the average of six replications and the experiment repeated thrice (D). Capped lines represent standard error. The symbol “*” on top of the bar indicates a significant difference compared to the control at P<0.05.

Table 2. Effect of Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 on clubroot incidence and severity index of rapeseed in field soil and planting mix.

Treatment Clubroot incidence Clubroot severity index
Field soil Planting mix Field soil Planting mix
Control (CK) 85.00±3.87a 89.12±1.77a 64.00±2.44a 62.50±3.81a
ReTk1 57.13±4.51b 47.66±1.45b 29.27±0.70b 28.00±3.51b
ReTv2 44.00±4.0c 42.28±2.33b 23.00±1.22c 21.00±0.94b
Significance level (P) *** *** *** ***

***P<0.001

Data are means ± standard error from a representative experiment. Each value represents the average of three replicates. Mean values with the same letters are not significantly different: Duncan’s Multiple Range Test; P<0.05.

Rapeseed plants inoculated with P. brassicae and treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2 were also examined for plant growth and development. The shoots of untreated plants (only inoculated with the pathogen) were smaller than those treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2. The endophytes (ReTk1 and ReTv2) increased shoot length by 63 to 66% in field soil and 23 to 50% in planting mix compared to controls. Likewise, endophytes-treated plants had a 45–50% higher fresh shoot weight in planting mix and 46–60% higher fresh shoot weight in field soil than controls. ReTk1 and ReTv2 treatment of P. brassicae-inoculated rapeseed plants produced larger roots than untreated control roots (Fig 4). Compared to controls, ReTk1 and ReTv2 increased root length by 14 to 23% in field soil and by 33 to 71% in the planting mix. Following the treatment of P. brassicae inoculated plants with ReTk1 and ReTv2, more robust root systems with many lateral roots were produced, despite the fresh weight being less in some plants treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2. Fewer and smaller galls in the roots of the treated plants resulted in lower fresh root weight, whereas the untreated pathogen-inoculated rapeseed plants had more and larger galls with damaged roots (S2 Fig in S1 File). Consequently, in field soil and planting mix trials, P. brassicae-inoculated plants treated with ReTk1 and ReTv2 had a lower root index than the control (Fig 5). Gall development was negatively correlated with root index, with a lower root index indicating less gall development on shorter, weaker root systems following pathogen infection (S2 Fig in S1 File).

Fig 4. Suppression of clubroot formation and promotion of plant growth of rapeseed.

Fig 4

The experiment was conducted with filed soil and planting mix under greenhouse conditions. The growth parameters and root index were quantified after 42 days of seeding. (A) Phenotypes of rapeseed plants without treatment (a) or treatment with ReTk1 (b) and ReTv2 (c). (B) Growth promotion of infected plants of rapeseed with or without Trichoderma-treatment and (C) root index. Root index means the fresh root weight of infected plants to the fresh root weight of uninfected plants (Ri/Rni). The smaller root index means less gall development and the larger root index means more gall development and shorter root length during infection. Bars represent the average six replications and capped lines standard errors. The symbol “*” on top of the bar indicates a significant difference compared to the control at P<0.05.

Fig 5. Colonization of rapeseed roots by Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2.

Fig 5

Trichoderma transformant expressing rfp. (A & C) Root colonization by ReTktr-1(5). (B & D) Root colonization by ReTvtr-2(23).

Application timing of Trichoderma spp. and clubroot severity

An experiment was conducted to evaluate if using ReTk1 and ReTv2 during seeding, transplanting, or both seeding and transplanting were more effective in targeting P. brassicae zoospores. The endophytic fungal isolates ReTk1 and ReTv2 either applied at seeding, transplanting, or both significantly reduced the gall formation at 7 and 14 DAS compared to water-treated control (pathogen inoculated only) (Table 3). Equally, applying Trichoderma into field soil and planting mix effectively reduced the gall formation substantially. Similarly, endophytic fungal isolates ReTk1 and ReTv2 did not vary significantly in reducing gall formation when treated during seeding, transplanting, or both. However, the isolate ReTv2 was more effective in reducing clubroot severity than ReTk1 both in the field soil and soilless planting mix experiments (Table 3). The disease severity index was always greater than 61% in the untreated control (pathogen-inoculated only), whereas ReTk1 & ReTv2 treated plants in both experiments (field soil and planting mix experiments) showed disease severity indices below 30% (Table 3).

Trichoderma colonization in the rapeseed roots

Rapeseed root inoculated with Trichoderma spp. ReTktr-1(5) and ReTvtr-2(23) showed profuse growth of the fungi. The fungi were observed in the root hairs and cortical tissues. Fluorescent microscopic observation also revealed the heavy presence of ReTktr-1(5) and ReTvtr-2(23) hyphae in the rapeseed roots. Both strains of Trichoderma were able to colonize the rapeseed rhizoplane and establish the hyphal growth inside the cortex of the root systems, indicating the signs of Trichoderma colonization of the rapeseed roots (Fig 5).

Up-regulation of defence-related gene expression of rapeseed

Seven of the nine plant defense-related genes examined were up-regulated in ReTk1 and ReTv2-inoculated roots compared to control roots (Fig 6). The genes BnOPCL and BnCCR, encoding phenylpropanoid pathway enzymes, were up-regulated by 118.21-, 106.58- and 23.8-, 48.63-folds in the roots of ReTk1 and ReTv2-treated plants, respectively, relative to control. Ethylene signalling genes BnACO and BnSAM3 increased by 3.41- and 11.75-folds and 197.5- and 447.12-folds in ReTk1 and ReTv2-treated roots, respectively. Likewise, the relative expression of BnOPR2 involved in jasmonic acid pathways was enhanced by 31.5- and 54.84-folds in ReTk1 and ReTv2-inoculated roots, respectively, compared to the control. The auxin responsive, BnAA01, was up-regulated by 41.32-folds and 42.28-folds in the roots of ReTk1 and ReTv2-treated plants, respectively. The expression levels of the salicylic acid pathway gene BnPR-2 encoding pathogenesis-related protein were 4.5- and 8.34-fold greater in TeTk1- and ReTv2-treated roots, respectively, than in control roots. The relative expression level of these genes was consistently higher in ReTv2-treated roots than in ReTk1. In contrast, treatment with ReTk1 and ReTv2 did not affect the expression of two additional salicylic acid-sensitive PR-protein genes, BnPR1 and BnPR5 (Fig 6).

Fig 6. Transcript level analysis of nine selected plant-defense-related genes in rapeseed seedlings treated with a soil drench of Trichoderma spp. or water (control) was performed using quantitative reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (qPCR).

Fig 6

The primers used in this experiment for quantifying BnPR-1, BnPR-2 and BnPR-5 were based on Potlakayala et al. [45] and the rest on Zhao et al. [46]. Gene expression was normalized using the reference Actin gene [46] in qPCR. The genes included in this experiment are three pathogenesis-related (BnPR-1, BnPR-2 and BnPR-5), genes that control ethylene (BnSAM3 and BnACO), auxin (BnAA01), jasmonic acid (BnOPR2), or phenylpropanoid (4-cournarate CoA ligase (BnOPCL) and c-innamoyl CoA reductase (BnCCR) pathways were assessed using root and first true leaf samples taken at 14 days after seeding (DAS). The relative levels of the transcript were calculated by the comparative Ct method. Bars represent the means and capped lines standard error (three replications). A gene was considered up-regulated when its expression level was substantially higher in treated plants relative to that of the control (least significant difference, P < 0.05).

Discussion

Most plants harbour a broad spectrum of endophytic fungi that act beneficially on plants by modulating host nutrition, growth, metabolites and stress responses [4850]. The success of endophytic biocontrol agents largely depends on their ability to colonize the root or rhizospheric region, allowing them to thrive during the cropping period and work through their various biocontrol mechanisms against notorious plant pathogens. Our investigations demonstrate that the endophytic fungi Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 isolated from healthy rapeseed roots (sampled from the clubroot-infested field) promote growth and reduce clubroot severity caused by an economically very important pathogen P. brassicae. The effects of Trichoderma on plant growth were noticeable in experiments conducted separately using field soil and soilless planting mix. The Tichoderma-treated plants produced larger shoots and roots compared to the untreated control. Likewise, leaf size and plant biomass production were significantly increased in the presence of the fungi, demonstrating the beneficial effects of these strains on plant performance. Previous work demonstrated that Trichoderma promotes growth responses in rapeseed [27, 51] and other plants [18, 31, 52, 53].

Although plant growth promotion by Trichoderma spp. has been studied extensively, little is known about their potential to inhibit clubroot fungus P. brassicae. In our experiment, rapeseed plants inoculated with P. brassicae and treated with the two endophytic isolates ReTk1 and ReTv2 also showed significantly enhanced growth compared to plants inoculated with P. brassicae only. The treatment of infected plants with ReTk1 and ReTv2 produced larger shoots and vigorous root systems with many lateral roots. Moreover, the percentage of root-hair infection (RHI) by P. brassicae was significantly reduced by ReTk1 and ReTv2 at 7 and 14 DAS, respectively, compared to pathogen inoculated only. In both field soil and planting mix experiments, the disease severity index was higher than 61% in the pathogen-inoculated control, while it was lower than 30% in the ReTk1 and ReTv2 treated plants. These Trichoderma strains were equally effective, whether applied at seeding, transplanting, or both. According to these findings, the endophytic strain Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2 have the potential to act as a biological control agent against rapeseed clubroot pathogen P. brassicae. The genus Trichoderma contains multiple species, many of which have been extensively researched for their potential use as biological control agents against a wide range of plant pathogens including P. brassicae. Experiments conducted in greenhouse pots revealed that T. harzianum strain T4 had a control efficiency of approximately 79% against P. brassicae in Chinese cabbage [28]. In another piece of research, the antifungal properties of the T. harzianum strain LTR-2 were demonstrated in Chinese cabbage grown outdoors. The disease incidence was reduced from 96.7% in the untreated control to 51.3% in the plants that had their seeds treated with spores of T. harzianum LTR-2 [29]. When tested against P. brassicae in Chinese cabbage, T. harzianum strain T4 showed up to 79% biocontrol efficacy in greenhouse pot trials [28]. Chinese cabbage disease incidence was reduced from 96.7% to 51.3% when T. harzianum strain LTR-2 was used as a biocontrol agent in the field [29]. Rapeseed seed germination and root growth were promoted by fermentation broth of T. koningiopsis Hz36, which also significantly reduced the viability of dormant P. brassicae spores [30]. The Hz36 strain was effective at controlling clubroot in rapeseed and Arabidopsis thaliana by 44.29% and 52.18%, respectively, in a biocontrol study. These findings suggest that clubroot pathogens can be controlled by using biological control strategies with Trichoderma.

The beneficial effects of these fungi are attributed to a number of direct and indirect mechanisms, such as mycoparasitism, antibiosis, the promotion of plant growth, and stress tolerance. Trichoderma treatment of P. brassicae-infected plants may result in the formation of new roots, allowing the continuous development of the plants and reducing the severity of clubroot [4]. Trichoderma might also produce a range of metabolites that could be detrimental to P. brassicae [54]. In the present study, the two biocontrol strains, ReTk1 and ReTv2 exhibited good inhibitory effects on germination and viability of resting spores. These results suggest that ReTk1 and ReTv2 specifically target P. brassicae zoospores, the most vulnerable stage of the pathogen life cycle [55]. Primary and secondary zoospore production peaks between 7 and 14 days post-inoculation under optimal temperature conditions [43]. The application timing of the endophytic strains can be optimized at this stage to prevent root infection and colonization. Our investigation also suggests that root colonization by Trichoderma may play an integral role in protecting rapeseed plants against P. brassicae infection. The candidate competent Trichoderma strains are able to colonize plant roots without causing any damage to the plant tissues, but they do induce changes in the plant physiology and its defense system against the pathogen. Studies in the last decades have established that root colonization by Trichoderma isolates can induce resistance to various pathogens in different plants, both below and aboveground [56]. The fact that seven out of nine defense-related genes were expressed in Trichoderma colonized rapeseed roots in this study lends credence to the hypothesis that induced resistance may play a role in the Trichoderma-mediated suppression of clubroot disease on rapeseed. This systemic resistance is most likely the outcome of the regulation of the plant defense network, which may translate Trichoderma-induced early signaling events into a more efficient activation of defense responses. It is widely known that the phytohormones, jasmonic acid, salicylic acid, and ethylene function as key signals in the regulation of induced plant defense responses [14]. The present study shows the upregulation of jasmonic acid (BnOPR2), ethylene (BnACO and BnSAM3), phenylpropanoid (BnOPCL and BnCCR), auxin (BnAAO1) and salicylic acid (BnPR2) responsive defense genes in Trichoderma colonized roots. Classically, the SA-regulated signaling route is operated during pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [57], whereas the jasmonic and ethylene pathways are typically necessary for the induction of systemic resistance by beneficial microbes [33, 58]. Therefore, the root endophytic Trichoderma spp. is capable of inducing resistance via SAR and ISR signaling pathways. Activation of multiple defense signaling pathways by plant growth-promoting fungi has been reported [14]. Moreover, the elevated expression of genes in phenylpropanoid pathways may lead to an enhanced amount of phenolic compounds [34], resulting in general resistance, including cell wall lignifications or specific resistance responses such as the production of phytoalexins [59].

Conclusions

Overall, two new potential endophytic fungal agents, Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTv2, identified from the rapeseed rhizosphere, effectively promote growth and reduce the clubroot severity of rapeseed after being mixed into the soil. Both one and two treatment applications at seeding and transplanting 7 to 14 DAS were equally effective. The observed suppression of clubroot by Trichoderma spp. may involve ISR through the phenylpropanoid, JA/ET, and SA pathways. Therefore, Trichoderma isolates ReTk1 and ReTv2 have the potential to be utilized as biocontrol agents for managing clubroot and enhancing rapeseed growth.

Supporting information

S1 File

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank the authority of the University of Rajshahi and Huaxhong Agricultural University, PR China, for providing the necessary support to conduct this research.

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Funding Statement

The author(s) received no specific funding for this work.

References

  • 1.Friedt W, Tu J, Fu T. Academic and Economic Importance of Rapeseed. Cham: Springer. 2018; 1–20. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-43694-4_1 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Dixon GR. Plasmodiophora brassicae in its environment. J Plant Growth Regul. 2009; 28:212–28. [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Cheah LH, Veerakone S, Kent G. Biological control of clubroot on cauliflower with Trichoderma and streptomyces spp. New Zealand Plant Protection. 2000; 53:18–21. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Virginia CC, Cirilo ALJ, Agham CC. Potential Impacts of the Use of Trichoderma spp. on Farmers’ Profit in the Field Control of Club Root Disease of Crucifers Caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae Wor. Philipp Agric Scientist. 2011; 94 (2): 171–178. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Lahlali R, Peng G, Gossen BD, McGregor L, Yu FQ, Hynes RK, et al. Evidence that the Biofungicide Serenade (Bacillus subtilis) Suppresses Clubroot on Canola via Antibiosis and Induced Host Resistance. Phytopathology. 2013; 103(3): 245–254. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Zhu M, He Y, Li Y, Ren T, Liu H, Huang J, et al. Two new biocontrol agents against clubroot caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae. Front. Microbiol. 2020; 10:3099. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.03099 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Strehlow B, de Mol F, Struck C. Risk potential of clubroot disease on winter oilseed rape. Plant Dis. 2015; 99:667–675. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-05-14-0482-RE [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hwang SF, Strelkov SE, Feng J, Gossen BD, Howard RJ. Plasmodiophora brassicae: A review of an emerging pathogen of the Canadian canola (Brassica napus) crop. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2012;13: 105–113. doi: 10.1111/j.1364-3703.2011.00729.x [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Malinowski R, Truman W, Blicharz S. Genius architect or clever thief-how Plasmodiophora brassicae reprograms host development to establish a pathogen-oriented physiological sink. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2019;32:1259–1266. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-03-19-0069-CR [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Schwelm A, Fogelqvist J, Knaust A, Jülke Sabine Lilja T, Bonilla-Rosso G. The Plasmodiophora brassicae genome reveals insights in its life cycle and ancestry of chitin synthases. Sci. Rep. 2015; 5:11153. doi: 10.1038/srep11153 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Guo S, Zhang J, Dong L, Li X, Asif M, Guo Q, et al. Fengycin produced by Bacillus subtilis NCD-2 is involved in suppression of clubroot on Chinese cabbage. Biol. Control. 2019;136:104001. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2019.104001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Peng G, McGregor L, Lahlali R, Gossen BD, Hwang SF, Adhikari KK, et al. Potential biological control of clubroot on canola and crucifer vegetable crops. Plant Pathology. 2010;60: 566–574. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02400.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Card S, Johnson L, Teasdale S, Caradus J. Deciphering endophyte behaviour: The link between endophyte biology and efficacious biological control agents. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016;92:fiw114. doi: 10.1093/femsec/fiw114 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Hossain MM, Sultana F, Kubota M, Koyama H, Hyakumachi M. The plant growth-promoting fungus Penicillium simplicissimum GP17-2 induces resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana by activation of multiple defense signals. Plant Cell Physiol. 2007; 48:1724–1736. doi: 10.1093/pcp/pcm144 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Hossain MM, Sultana F, Hyakumachi M. Role of ethylene signalling in growth and systemic resistance induction by the plant growth-promoting fungus Penicillium viridicatum in Arabidopsis. J Phytopathol. 2017; 165: 432–441. 10.1111/jph.12577 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hossain MM. Biological management of plant diseases by non-pathogenic Phoma spp. In: Rai M, Zimowska B, Kövics GJ, editors. Phoma: Diversity, Taxonomy, Bioactivities, and Nanotechnology. Springer: Cham; 2022. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-81218-8_15 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Brotman Y, Landau U, Cuadros-Inostroza A, Takayuki T, Fernie AR, Chet I, et al. Trichoderma-plant root colonization: escaping early plant defense responses and activation of the antioxidant machinery for saline stress tolerance. PLoS Pathog. 2013; 9(3): e1003221. doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1003221 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hossain MM, Sultana F, Islam S. Plant Growth-Promoting Fungi (PGPF): Phytostimulation and Induced Systemic Resistance. In: Singh D, Singh H, Prabha R, editors. Plant-Microbe Interactions in Agro-Ecological Perspectives. Springer: Singapore; 2017. [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Safari Motlagh MR, Abolghasemi M. The effect of Trichoderma spp. isolates on some morphological traits of canola inoculated with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and evaluation of their efficacy in biological control of pathogen. Journal of the Saudi Society of Agricultural Sciences. 2022;21: 217–231. doi: 10.1016/j.jssas.2021.08.004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Sood M, Kapoor D, Kumar V, Sheteiwy MS, Ramakrishnan M, Landi M, et al. Trichoderma: The "Secrets" of a multitalented biocontrol agent. Plants 2020; 9: 762. doi: 10.3390/plants9060762 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Alfiky A, Weisskopf L. Deciphering Trichoderma-plant-pathogen interactions for better development of biocontrol applications. J. Fungi. 2021; 7:61. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Poveda J, Eugui D, Abril-Urías P, Velasco P. Endophytic fungi as direct plant growth promoters for sustainable agricultural production. Symbiosis. 2021; 85(1), 1–19. [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Poveda J, Díaz-González S, Díaz-Urbano M, Velasco P, Sacristán S. Fungal endophytes of Brassicaceae: Molecular interactions and crop benefits. Front. Plant Sci. 2022; 13:932288. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.932288 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Tashakori FE, Taghavi GF, Pirdashti H, Tajick GMA, Bahmanyar MA. Symbiotic effect of Trichoderma atroviride on growth characteristics and yield of two cultivars of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) in a contaminated soil treated with copper nitrate. Iranian Journal of Field Crops Research 2017; 15, 74–86. [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Poveda J, Hermosa R, Monte E, Nicolás C. The Trichoderma harzianum Kelch Protein ThKEL1 Plays a Key Role in Root Colonization and the Induction of Systemic Defense in Brassicaceae Plants. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2019;10. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2019.01478 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Poveda J.; Hermosa R.; Monte E.; Nicolás C. Trichoderma harzianum favours the access of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi to non-host Brassicaceae roots and increases plant productivity. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 1–11. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Poveda J. Trichoderma parareesei favors the tolerance of rapeseed (Brassica napus L.) to salinity and drought due to a Chorismate mutase. Agronomy. 2020; 10(1): 118. MDPI AG. Retrieved from 10.3390/agronomy10010118 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Yu XX, Zhao YT, Cheng J, Wang W. Biocontrol effect of Trichoderma harzianum T4 on brassica clubroot and analysis of rhizosphere microbial communities based on T-RFLP. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2015;25: 1493–1505. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2015.1067762 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Li J, Philp J, Li J, Wei Y, Li H, Yang K, et al. Trichoderma harzianum inoculation reduces the incidence of clubroot disease in Chinese cabbage by regulating the rhizosphere microbial community. Microorganisms. 2020;8: 1325. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8091325 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Zhao Y, Chen X, Cheng J, Xie J, Lin Y, Jiang D, et al. Application of Trichoderma Hz36 and Hk37 as Biocontrol Agents against Clubroot Caused by Plasmodiophora brassicae. Journal of Fungi. 2022; 8(8):777. doi: 10.3390/jof8080777 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yedidia I, Srivastva AK, Kapulnik Y, Chet I. Effect of Trichoderma harzianum on microelement concentrations and increased growth of cucumber plants. Plant Soil. 2001; 235: 235–242. [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Shoresh M, Yedidia I, Chet I. Involvement of jasmonic acid/ethylene signaling pathway in the systemic resistance induced in cucumber by Trichoderma asperellum T203. Phytopathology. 2005; 95:76–84. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-95-0076 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Shoresh M, Harman GE. The Molecular Basis of Shoot Responses of Maize Seedlings to Trichoderma harzianum T22 Inoculation of the Root: A Proteomic Approach. Plant Physiology. 2008;147: 2147–2163. doi: 10.1104/pp.108.123810 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Shoresh M, Harman GE, Mastouri F. Induced systemic resistance and plant responses to fungal biocontrol agents. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2010; 48: 21–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114450 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hermosa R, Viterbo A, Chet I, Monte E. Plant-beneficial effects of Trichoderma and of its genes. Microbiology. 2012; 158:17–25. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Sambrook J, Russsel DW. Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor; 2001. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.White TJ, Bruns T, Lee S, Taylor JW. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal genes for phylogenetics. In: Innis M, Gelfand DH, Sninsky JJ, White TJ, editors. PCR protocols: a guide to methods and applications. Academic Press: San Diego, CA; 1990. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Tamura K, Stecher G, Kumar S. MEGA11: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 11. Battistuzzi FU, editor. Molecular Biology and Evolution. 2021;38: 3022–3027. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msab120 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Suzuki K, Matsumiya E, Ueno Y, Mizutani J. Some properties of germination-stimulating factor from plants for resting spores of Plasmodiophora brassicae. Ann Phytopathol Soc Japan. 1992; 58(5):699–705. [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Naiki T, Dixon GR, Ikegami H. Quantitative estimation of spore germination of Plasmodiophora brassicae, T Brit Mycol Soc. 1987; 89(4): 569–609. [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Klewer A, Lueren H, Graf H, Siemens J. Restriction fragment length polymorphism markers to characterise Plasmodiophora brassicae single-spore isolates with different virulence patterns. J. Phytopathol. 2001;149: 121–127. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Sharma K, Gossen BD, McDonald MR. Effect of temperature on cortical infection by Plasmodiophora brassicae and clubroot severity. Phytopathology. 2011; 101:1424–1432. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Qin L, Jiang X, Dong Z, Huang J, Chen X. Identification of two integration sites in favor of transgene expression in Trichoderma reesei. Biotechnol Biofuels. 2018;17(11):142. doi: 10.1186/s13068-018-1139-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Penttilä M, Nevalainen H, Rättö M, Salminen E, Knowles J. A versatile transformation system for the cellulolytic filamentous fungus Trichoderma reesei. Gene. 1987;61: 155–164. doi: 10.1016/0378-1119(87)90110-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Potlakayala S, Reed DW, Covello PS, Fobert PR. Systemic acquired resistance in canola is linked with pathogenesis related gene expression and requires salicylic acid. Phytopathology. 2007; 97:794–802. doi: 10.1094/PHYTO-97-7-0794 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Zhao J, Buchwaldt L, Rimmer SR, Sharpe A, McGregor L, Bekkaoui D, et al. Patterns of differential gene expression in Brassica napus cultivars infected with Sclerotinia sclerotiorum. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2009;10: 635–649. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Cai F, Druzhinina IS. In honor of John Bissett: authoritative guidelines on molecular identification of Trichoderma. Fungal Diversity. 2021;107: 1–69. doi: 10.1007/s13225-020-00464-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Redman RS, Sheehan KB, Stout RG, Rodriguez RJ, Henson JM. Thermotolerance generated by plant/fungal symbiosis. Science. 2002; 298:1581. doi: 10.1126/science.1072191 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Rai MK, Varma A, Pandey AK. 2004. Antifungal potential of Spilanthes calva after inoculation of Piriformospora indica. Mycoses. 47:479–481. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Baldi A, Jain A, Gupta NA, Srivastava K, Bisaria VS. Co-culture of arbuscular mycorrhiza-like fungi (Piriformospora indica and Sebacina vermifera) with plant cells of Linum album for enhanced production of podophyllotoxins: a first report. Biotechnol. Lett. 2008; 30:1671–1677. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Maag D, Kandula DRW, Müller C, Mendoza-Mendoza A, Wratten SD, Stewart A, et al. Trichoderma atroviride LU132 promotes plant growth but not induced systemic resistance to Plutella xylostella in oilseed rape. BioControl. 2014; 59:241–252. doi: 10.1007/s10526-013-9554-7 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Hossain MM, Sultana F. Application and mechanisms of plant growth promoting fungi (PGPF) for phytostimulation. In: Das SK, Editor. Organic Agriculture. IntechOpen: London, UK; 2020. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Mastouri F, Bjorkman T, Harman GE. Seed Treatment with Trichoderma harzianum alleviates biotic, abiotic, and physiological stresses in germinating seeds and seedlings. Phytopathology. 2010; 100(11):1213–1221. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Mukherjee PK, Horwitz BA, Kenerley CM. Secondary metabolism in Trichoderma- a genomic perspective. Microbiology. 2012; 185:35–45. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Dixon GR. Dixon GR. The biology of Plasmodiophora brassicae wor.—a review of recent advances. Acta Horticulturae. 2006; 271–282. doi: 10.17660/actahortic.2006.706.32 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Martínez-Medina A, Fernández I, Sánchez-Guzmán MJ, Jung SC, Pascual JA and Pozo MJ. Deciphering the hormonal signaling network behind the systemic resistance induced by Trichoderma harzianum in tomato. Front. Plant Sci. 2013;4: 206. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00206 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Durrant WE, Dong X. Systemic acquired resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2004; 42:185–209. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140421 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Pieterse CMJ, van Wees SCM, van Pelt JA, Knoester M, Laan R, Gerrits H, et al. A Novel Signaling Pathway Controlling Induced Systemic Resistance in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell. 1998;10: 1571–1580. doi: 10.1105/tpc.10.9.1571 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Lattanzio V, Latanzio VMT, Cardinali A. Role of phenolics in the resistance mechanisms of plants against fungal pathogens and insects. In: Imperato F, editor. Phytochemistry: Advances in Research. Research Signpost: Kerala, India; 2006. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Eugenio Llorens

17 Apr 2023

PONE-D-23-08914New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hossain,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jun 01 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eugenio Llorens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and 

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: 

   "We would like to thank the authority of Huaxhong Agricultural University, PR China for providing necessary support to conduct this research. We are also greatfull to University of Rajshahi for partial financial support through allocation of special research grant (A-795/6/-109) (rsearch), 2022) to carry out this research."

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form. 

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: 

  "The author(s) received no specific funding for this work."

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information. 

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled "New 1 endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)" describes the sampling of endophytic fungi from rapeseed and how two strains of Trichoderma are beneficial to the plant. The manuscript is well-written and uses an interesting approach to isolate the fungal strains directly from the plants. Here are some suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript:

- Line 118: Fungal identification at the species level using only ITS sequences are not accurate, especially for Trichoderma strains, since several species share the same ITS sequence. I suggest using other loci, like rpb2 and tef1 (Cai & Druzhinina, 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00464-4), or describing it in the paper as unconfirmed species.

- Send Table 1 to the supplemental material.

- Figure 1 shows very low support values on critical nodes. I recommend rerunning the tree using a better methodology like iqtree selecting the best model automatically.

- Table 2: Are these Genbank accession numbers from your sequences or the blast best hit on Genbank? If the latter is true, The authors must deposit the sequences in GenBank and add the accession numbers, and then the readers can replicate the same analysis. Also, the similarity search should be done on specialized databases, like UNITE (https://unite.ut.ee/)

- The numbers in the parenthesis on lines 345, 347, and 350 are confusing. Since the authors are already referring to Figure 2, remove them. Also, add the P-value in the figure for each comparison in ALL bar plots present in the manuscript. At least a "*" if < 0.05.

- Same on lines 387 and 389. It seems the same data shown in Tables 3 and 4 are also shown in Figures 4 and 5, is that correct? If so, remove the tables and include the statistical analysis in the bat plots.

- Increase the resolution of the plots. The quality is very low in the manuscript document.

- Both Trichoderma strains look good biocontrol candidates. In your opinion, how would they compare to commercial strains such as T. afroharzianum T22?

Reviewer #2: GENERAL ASPECTS:

- The document presents too many self-citations that are not scientifically justified. For example, the citation [18] is a book chapter and there are numerous papers on the subject that should be cited instead. For example: Poveda, J., Eugui, D., Abril-Urías, P., & Velasco, P. (2021). Endophytic fungi as direct plant growth promoters for sustainable agricultural production. Symbiosis, 85(1), 1-19. OR: J. Poveda, P. Baptista, S. Sacristán, P. Velasco

Beneficial effects of fungal endophytes in major agricultural crops. Front. Plant Sci., 13 (2022).

- Scientific names are named in full only the first time they appear in the text, then with the genus reduced. Example: B. napus.

- Review the function of the genes used in the gene expression study. The Abstract indicates that they are biosynthesis genes, but several genes that are response, not biosynthesis, have been used.

- Gene names are always in italics.

ABSTRACT:

- To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation.

INTRODUCTION:

- To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation.

- Develop a paragraph on the studies developed so far on the Trichoderma-B. napus interaction. There is a review published in 2022 that will be very useful for this: Poveda, J., Díaz-González, S., Díaz-Urbano, M., Velasco, P., & Sacristán, S. (2022). Fungal endophytes of Brassicaceae: Molecular interactions and crop benefits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 932288. SEARCH THE TEXT FOR THE KEY WORDS: "rapeseed" and "napus".

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

- L118-137: the identification of Trichoderma based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work.

- L141: there is an error in "in the following section of this manuscript". The following section does not correspond to what is indicated.

- Data analysis: errors when speaking of P. Capitalize or lowercase, but always in italics.

RESULTS:

- L305-338: the fungal identification based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work.

DISCUSSION:

- Discuss further the reported in planta effects. There are many papers on Trichoderma-Rapeseed interaction and its effect on productivity, growth or ISR, which have not been discussed.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 31;18(10):e0287899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


31 May 2023

Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1: The manuscript entitled "New 1 endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)" describes the sampling of endophytic fungi from rapeseed and how two strains of Trichoderma are beneficial to the plant. The manuscript is well-written and uses an interesting approach to isolate the fungal strains directly from the plants. Here are some suggestions to improve the overall quality of the manuscript.

Response:

We thankfully acknowledge your overall positive comment on our manuscript. We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. We have used Word Track Changes to mark up the manuscripts with revisions. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication.

Comment#1

Line 118: Fungal identification at the species level using only ITS sequences are not accurate, especially for Trichoderma strains, since several species share the same ITS sequence. I suggest using other loci, like rpb2 and tef1 (Cai & Druzhinina, 2021 - https://doi.org/10.1007/s13225-020-00464-4), or describing it in the paper as unconfirmed species.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. The species-level identification has been omitted and only Trichoderma spp. (ReTk1 and ReTv2) have been used throughout the manuscript. Moreover, we have added sentences describing the need to use additional loci for species-level identification of the two strains citing the aboved reference (L454-459) .

Comment#2

Send Table 1 to the supplemental material.

Response:

Table 1 has been transferred to supplemental material as Table S1.

Comment#3

Figure 1 shows very low support values on critical nodes. I recommend rerunning the tree using a better methodology like iq-tree, selecting the best model automatically.

Response:

Thank you for the valuable comments. We agree with you that IQ-TREE is a better methodology. However, we are not experts in using IQ-TREE. Therefore, we reanalyzed the tree using the latest version (v.11) of MEGA and cited a reference supporting this analysis in the Materials and Methods (L227). The new Figure 1 has been added to the manuscript.

Comment#4

Table 2: Are these Genbank accession numbers from your sequences or the blast best hit on Genbank? If the latter is true, The authors must deposit the sequences in GenBank and add the accession numbers, and then the readers can replicate the same analysis. Also, the similarity search should be done on specialized databases, like UNITE (https://unite.ut.ee/)

Response:

Thank you very much for this suggestion. The GenBank accession numbers of our sequences have been added to Table 1. The similarity search has been done using BLASTn databases.

Comment#5

The numbers in the parenthesis on lines 345, 347, and 350 are confusing. Since the authors are already referring to Figure 2, remove them. Also, add the P-value in the figure for each comparison in ALL bar plots present in the manuscript. At least a "*" if < 0.05.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. The values in the parenthesis have been removed. The P-value has been added to the bar plots in all figures.

Comment# 6

Same on lines 387 and 389. It seems the same data shown in Tables 3 and 4 are also shown in Figures 4 and 5; is that correct? If so, remove the tables and include the statistical analysis in the bat plots.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. The values indicating the percent increase have been removed. However, Table 3 and Figure 4 and Table 4 and Figure 5 are not showing the same data. Table 3 represents the treatment effects on clubroot incidence and severity index of rapeseed in field soil and planting mix. In contrast, Table 4 denotes the application timing of Trichoderma spp. on clubroot severity index in field soil and planting mix. Figure 4 represents the root hair infection and Figure 5 represents the treatment effect on suppression of club root formation.

Comment# 7

Increase the resolution of the plots. The quality is very low in the manuscript document.

Response:

The resolution of the plots has been enhanced. So, the quality is now improved.

Comment#8

Both Trichoderma strains look good biocontrol candidates. In your opinion, how would they compare to commercial strains such as T. afroharzianum T22?

Response:

Thank you for your valuable statement. Trichoderma spp. are well-known biocontrol agents and widely used worldwide, although their effectiveness varies from strain to strain. In our study, we isolated two strains that show good biocontrol and growth promotion activity. As T. afroharzianum T22 is a commercial strain, it is obviously a promising biocontrol agent. As per our opinion, the isolated two strains and T22 could be good candidate biocontrol agents for reducing clubroot severity and enhancing the growth of rapeseed.

Reviewer #2:

Thank you very much for your positive evaluation of our manuscript. We also very much appreciate your overall comments and suggestions that have helped us improve the quality of our manuscript. Please see below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. Word Track Changes have been used to note up revisions in the manuscripts. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication.

Comment#1

GENERALASPECTS:

The document presents too many self-citations that are not scientifically justified. For example, the citation [18] is a book chapter and there are numerous papers on the subject that should be cited instead. For example: Poveda, J., Eugui, D., Abril-Urías, P., & Velasco, P. (2021). Endophytic fungi as direct plant growth promoters for sustainable agricultural production. Symbiosis, 85(1), 1-19. OR: J. Poveda, P. Baptista, S. Sacristán, P. Velasco. Beneficial effects of fungal endophytes in major agricultural crops. Front. Plant Sci., 13 (2022).

Response:

We thank the Reviewer for making this suggestion. Following your advice, we have replaced and added new references to the manuscript (L104).

Comment#2

Scientific names are named in full only the first time they appear in the text, then with the genus reduced. Example: B. napus.

Response:

Thank you for critical reviewing. The scientific name has been corrected in the manuscript according to your suggestion.

Comment#3

Review the function of the genes used in the gene expression study. The Abstract indicates that they are biosynthesis genes, but several genes that are response, not biosynthesis, have been used.

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion. We have corrected the sentence in the Abstract (L42) following your suggestion.

Comment 4

Gene names are always in italics.

Response:

All the gene names have been written in italics.

Comment#5

ABSTRACT:

To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation.

Response:

A sentence describing the importance of rapeseed cultivation has been added in the Abstract (L24-25).

Comment#5

INTRODUCTION:

To point out the importance of rapeseed cultivation.

Response:

The importance of rapeseed cultivation has been described in Introduction (L62-65).

Comment#6

Develop a paragraph on the studies developed so far on the Trichoderma-B. napus interaction. There is a review published in 2022 that will be very useful for this: Poveda, J., Díaz-González, S., Díaz-Urbano, M., Velasco, P., & Sacristán, S. (2022). Fungal endophytes of Brassicaceae: Molecular interactions and crop benefits. Frontiers in Plant Science, 13, 932288. SEARCH THE TEXT FOR THE KEYWORDS: "rapeseed" and "napus".

Response:

We appreciate your suggestion. A paragraph on the discussion of Trichoderma-B. napus interaction has been added in the Introduction (L104-164).

Comment 7

MATERIALS AND METHODS:

L118-137: Identifying Trichoderma based only on ITS does not allow us to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work.

Response:

We have accepted your suggestion and identified the fungal strains only at the genus level, such as Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTV2 (L455-460).

Comment 8

L141: there is an error in "in the following section of this manuscript". The following section does not correspond to what is indicated.

Response:

We have corrected the statement as “described in the later section of this manuscript” (From L232-233). The method has been described

Comment 8

Data analysis: errors when speaking of P. Capitalize or lowercase, but always in italics.

Response:

Now this has been italicized (p).

Comment 9

RESULTS:

L305-338: the fungal identification based only on ITS does not allow to know the species, only the genus. For this, at least two other molecular markers are necessary. Correct this in all the work.

Response:

We have identified the fungi at the species such as only Trichoderma spp. ReTk1 and ReTV2 and corrected it thoughout the manuscript.

Comment#10

DISCUSSION:

Discuss further the reported in planta effects. There are many papers on Trichoderma-Rapeseed interaction and its effect on productivity, growth or ISR, which have not been discussed.

Response:

A paragraph on Trichoderma-B. napus interaction has already been added in the “Introduction” section following your suggestion (L104-164).

Decision Letter 1

Eugenio Llorens

6 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-08914R1New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Hossain,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that the manuscript could be accepted for publication after the small corrections suggested by one of the reviewers. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Jul 21 2023 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols. Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Eugenio Llorens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

Please review your reference list to ensure that it is complete and correct. If you have cited papers that have been retracted, please include the rationale for doing so in the manuscript text, or remove these references and replace them with relevant current references. Any changes to the reference list should be mentioned in the rebuttal letter that accompanies your revised manuscript. If you need to cite a retracted article, indicate the article’s retracted status in the References list and also include a citation and full reference for the retraction notice.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript was clearly improved, but I still have two recommendations:

- Drop the Figure 1 with the phylogenetic tree, the support values are too low and the grouping seems random and uninformative. Therefore, it's not adding relevant information to the manuscript.

- Regarding the "*" on figures 2B,3C,4 and 5B: is not clear what it means. Just add a "*" on top of the bar where the comparison with the control is significant. The way it's shown, there's no way to know which comparison is significant.

Reviewer #2: Thank you for making all the requested changes. I believe that the document has been substantially improved and is suitable for publication. Congratulations for the work done and much success in your future work.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2023 Oct 31;18(10):e0287899. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0287899.r004

Author response to Decision Letter 1


11 Jun 2023

Responses to the Reviewer’s Comments

Reviewer #1:

We thankfully acknowledge your overall positive comment on our manuscript. We are very glad that the Reviewer provided constructive comments and valuable suggestions that have helped us further improve the quality of our manuscript. Please find below our point-to-point responses to your kind comments and suggestions. We have used Word Track Changes to mark up the manuscripts with revisions. We hope that the Reviewer would be satisfied with our responses and endorse the revised manuscript for publication.

Comment 1

Drop the Figure 1 with the phylogenetic tree, the support values are too low and the grouping seems random and uninformative. Therefore, it's not adding relevant information to the manuscript..

Response

Thank you for your suggestion. We have droped the Figure 1.

Comment 2

Regarding the "*" on figures 2B,3C,4 and 5B: is not clear what it means. Just add a "*" on top of the bar where the comparison with the control is significant. The way it's shown, there's no way to know which comparison is significant.

Response

We have amended Figures 2B, 3C, 4 and 5B following your suggestion.

Decision Letter 2

Eugenio Llorens

15 Jun 2023

New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)

PONE-D-23-08914R2

Dear Dr. Hossain,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Eugenio Llorens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors addressed all comments and removed the problematic figure. Now it's ready for publication.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

Acceptance letter

Eugenio Llorens

20 Jun 2023

PONE-D-23-08914R2

New endophytic strains of Trichoderma promote growth and reduce clubroot severity of rapeseed (Brassica napus)

Dear Dr. Hossain:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Eugenio Llorens

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 File

    (DOCX)

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.


    Articles from PLOS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES