Abstract
Root elongation occurs by the generation of new cells from meristematic tissue within the apical 1–2 mm region of root tips. Therefore penetration of the soil environment is carried out by newly synthesized plant tissue, whose cells are inherently vulnerable to invasion by pathogens. This conundrum, on its face, would seem to reflect an intolerable risk to the successful establishment of root systems needed for plant life. Yet root tip regions housing the meristematic tissues repeatedly have been found to be free of microbial infection and colonization. Even when spore germination, chemotaxis, and/or growth of pathogens are stimulated by signals from the root tip, the underlying root tissue can escape invasion. Recent insights into the functions of root border cells, and the regulation of their production by transient exposure to external signals, may shed light on long-standing observations.
Key words: border cells, chemotaxis, zoospores, neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs)
…The evidence suggests that there has evolved within plants, mechanisms for extremely rapid adjustment to changes in the soil environment. The logical conclusion is that plants can and do selectively manipulate the ecological balances within the rhizosphere to their own advantage.1
“Sloughed root cap cells” that detach from the root tip were long presumed to be moribund tissue serving to lubricate passage of the elongating root.2 The discovery nearly a century ago that these cells from Zea mays L. and Pisum sativum L. can remain 100% viable for weeks after detachment into hydroponic culture did not alter this perception.3 In recent decades, studies have shown that the cells from root caps of most species are metabolically active and can survive even after detachment into the soil.4 Moreover, the cell populations express distinct patterns of gene expression reflecting tissue specialization and were therefore given the name root ‘border’ cells.5 Like ‘border towns’ that exist at the boundary of disparate countries and cultures, border cells are part of the plant and part of the soil, yet distinct from both.
The soil is a dynamic environment whose pH, surface charge, water availability, texture and composition can range markedly on a large and small scale.1,6,7 The concept of a ‘microniche’ emphasizes that the biological requirements for a particular soil microorganism may be met within one site but not another site only a micron away.8 Thus, the rhizosphere—the region adjacent to root surfaces—can support much higher levels of microorganisms than bulk soil a few millimeters distant.9 This phenomenon is recognized to be driven by an increased availability of nutrients released from plants into the external environment.10 Less well recognized is the dynamic variation that occurs along the root surface, and its significance in patterns of disease development. As roots emerge and the new tissue differentiates progressively through stages from root cap, root apical meristem, elongation zone, and finally mature roots with lignified cell walls, the material released into the environment also changes.11–13 More than 90% of bulk carbon released from young roots of legumes is delivered by the root cap, a 1 mm zone at the apex.14 Some pathogens are attracted specifically to the root tip region, presumably in response to such exudates.15,16 For example, instantaneous swarming occurs when a cotton root is placed into a suspension of Pythium dissotocum zoospores (Sup. Fig. 1). This host-specific attraction is specific to the root tip region where border cells are present (Sup. Fig. 2). Border cells remain attractive to zoospores when removed from the root (Sup. Fig. 3). The nature of the attractant is not known, but its impact is localized and transient (Sup. Fig. 4).
Newly generated tissue is highly susceptible to infection by pathogens, in general, so elongating root tips would be predicted to be vulnerable to invasion. And yet, root apices repeatedly have been found to escape infection and colonization.17–19 Recent discoveries about parallels between mammalian white blood cells and root border cells may provide new insight into this apparent conundrum.20 Neutrophils, a type of white blood cell, are produced in response to infection. Neutrophil extracellular traps (NETs) then attract and kill the invader through a process that requires extracellular DNA (exDNA) and an array of extracellular proteins.21,22 Border cell production, like that of neutrophils, also is induced in response to signals from pathogens and root tip resistance to infection requires exDNA and an array of extracellular proteins.20,23 Root tip specific chemotaxis, like that seen with Pythium zoospores, has been presumed to involve steps in a process of pathogen invasion.15,16 It may, instead, involve a process of extracellular trapping and killing by cells designed to protect root meristems from invasion, in a manner analogous to that which occurs in mammalian defense. If tests confirm this model, the mystery of how root tips escape infection by soilborne pathogens they attract could be resolved.
Conclusions and Perspectives
Soilborne pathogens are a perennial threat to crop production worldwide. The fact that many species can remain in a dormant or quiescent state for years, with reactivation in response to signals released from emergent roots, makes control difficult using classical approaches such as crop rotation. Plants express complex and variable defense pathways that can take minutes to hours to deploy.24,25 Under dynamic soil conditions, the defenses that occur in the earliest moments of root-pathogen contact may be most important in disease prevention and avoidance.26 For decades, fumigant pesticides like methyl bromide that obliterate soilborne microbial populations within the soil have nearly eliminated the threat of some root diseases. With continuing efforts to implement the phaseout of methyl bromide due to its toxicity to beneficial microorganisms as well as animals, a renewed research focus on root-microbe dynamics is warranted.27
Acknowledgments
This work was supported by the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, University of Arizona and by the National Science Foundation (Grant number 1032339).
Supplementary Material
References
- 1.Zobel RW. Tertiary root systems. In: Zobel RW, Wright SF, editors. Roots and Soil Management: Interactions Between Roots and the Soil. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy, Inc., Soil Science Society of America, Inc.; 2005. p. 54. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Hawes M, Brigham LA. Impact of root border cells on microbial populations in the rhizosphere. Adv Plant Pathol. 1992;8:119–148. [Google Scholar]
- 3.Knudson L. Viability of detached root cap cells. Am J Bot. 1919;6:309–310. [Google Scholar]
- 4.Vermeer J, McCully ME. The rhizosphere in Zea: new insight into its structure and development. Planta. 1982;156:45–61. doi: 10.1007/BF00393442. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5.Brigham LA, Woo HH, Hawes MC. Differential expression of proteins and mRNAs from border cells and root tips of pea. Plant Physiol. 1995;109:457–463. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.2.457. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Brady NC, Weil RR. Elements of the nature and properties of soils. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2010. [Google Scholar]
- 7.Bruehl GW. Soilborne Plant Pathogens. New York, NY: Macmillan Publishing Company; 1985. [Google Scholar]
- 8.White DC. Chemical ecology: Possible linkage between macro- and microbial ecology. OIKOS. 1995;74:177–184. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Hiltner L. Über neuere Erfahrungen und Probleme auf dem Gebiete der Bodenbakteriologie unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Gründüngung und Brache. Arb DLG. 1904;98:59–78. (Ger). [Google Scholar]
- 10.Curl EA, Truelove B. The Rhizosphere. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 1986. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Baluska F, Volkmann D, Barlow PW. Specialized zones of development in roots: view from the cellular level. Plant Physiol. 1996;112:3–4. doi: 10.1104/pp.112.1.3. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12.Graham TL. Flavonoid and isoflavonoid distribution in developing soybean seedling tissues and in seed and root exudates. Plant Physiol. 1991;95:594–603. doi: 10.1104/pp.95.2.594. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13.VanEgeraat AWSM. Evaluation of ninhydrin-positive compounds by pea seedling roots: a study of the sites of exudation and the composition of the exudate. Plant Soil. 1975;42:37–47. [Google Scholar]
- 14.Griffin GJ, Hale MG, Shay FJ. Nature and quantity of sloughed organic matter produced by roots of axenic peanut plants. Soil Biol Biochem. 1976;7:241–250. [Google Scholar]
- 15.Goldberg NP, Hawes MC, Stanghellini ME. Specific attraction to and infection of cotton root cap cells by zoospores of Pythium dissotocum. Can J Bot. 1989;67:1760–1767. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Jones SW, Donaldson SP, Deacon JW. Behavior of zoospores and zoospore cysts in relation to root infection by Pythium aphanidermatum. New Phytol. 1991;117:289–301. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Chin-A-Woeng TFC, dePriester W, van der Bij AJ, Lubtenberg BJJ. Description of the colonization of agnotobiotic tomato rhizosphere by Pseudomonas fluorescens biocontrol strain WCS365, using scanning electron microscopy. Mol Plant Microb Interact. 1997;10:79–86. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Foster RC, Rovira AD, Cock TW. Ultrastructure of the Root-Soil Interface. St. Paul, MN: American Phytopathogical Society; 1983. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Lagopodi AL, Ram AFJ, Lamers GEM, Punt PJ, Vanden Hondel CAMJJ, Lugtenberg BJJ. Novel aspects of tomato root colonization and infection by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. radicis-lycopersici revealed by conflcal laser scanning microscopic analysis using the green fluorescent protein as a marker. Mol Plant Microb Interact. 2002;15:172–179. doi: 10.1094/MPMI.2002.15.2.172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20.Wen F, White GJ, VanEtten HD, Ziong Z, Hawes MC. Extracellular DNA is required for root tip resistance to fungal infection. Plant Physiol. 2009;151:820–829. doi: 10.1104/pp.109.142067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Brinkmann V, Reichard U, Goosmann C, Fauler B, Uhlemann Y, Weiss DS, et al. Neutrophil extracellular traps kill bacteria. Science. 2004;303:1532–1535. doi: 10.1126/science.1092385. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Medina E. Neutrophil extracellular traps: A strategic tactic to defeat pathogens with potential consequences for the host. J Innate Immun. 2009;1:176–180. doi: 10.1159/000203699. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23.Curlango-Rivera G, Duclos DV, Ebolo JJ, Hawes MC. Transient exposure of root tips to primary and secondary metabolites: Impact on root growth and production of border cells. Plant Soil. 2010;306:206–216. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Bradley DJ, Kjelborn P, Lamb CJ. Elicitor- and wound-induced oxidative cross-linking of a proline-rich plant cell wall proteins: A novel, rapid defense response. Cell. 1992;70:21–30. doi: 10.1016/0092-8674(92)90530-p. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 25.Bonas U, Lahaye T. Plant disease resistance triggered by pathogen-derived molecules: refined models of specific recognition. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2002;5:44–50. doi: 10.1016/s1369-5274(02)00284-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26.Nelson EB. Rhizosphere regulation of preinfection behavior of oomycete plant pathogens. In: Mukerji KG, Manoharachary C, Singh J, editors. Soil Biology. Microbial Activity in the Rhizosphere. Vol. 7. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag; 2008. pp. 311–343. [Google Scholar]
- 27.Martin FN. Development of alternative strategies for management of soilborne pathogens currently controlled with methyl bromide. Ann Review Phytopathol. 2003;41:325–350. doi: 10.1146/annurev.phyto.41.052002.095514. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.