Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Pathogens logoLink to Pathogens
. 2021 Jul 17;10(7):903. doi: 10.3390/pathogens10070903

Biological Control of Take-All and Growth Promotion in Wheat by Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10

Wen Xu 1,2, Lingling Xu 3, Xiaoxu Deng 1,2, Paul H Goodwin 4, Mingcong Xia 1,2, Jie Zhang 1,2, Qi Wang 5, Runhong Sun 1,2, Yamei Pan 1,2, Chao Wu 1,2, Lirong Yang 1,2,*
Editors: Huijun Wu, Xuewen Gao
PMCID: PMC8308743  PMID: 34358053

Abstract

Wheat is a worldwide staple food crop, and take-all caused by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici can lead to a tremendous decrease in wheat yield and quality. In this study, strain YB-10 was isolated from wheat rhizospheric soil and identified as Pseudomonas chlororaphis by morphology and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10 had extracellular protease and cellulase activities and strongly inhibited the mycelium growth of Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici in dual cultures. Up to 87% efficacy of Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10 in controlling the take-all of seedlings was observed in pot experiments when wheat seed was coated with the bacterium. Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10 was also positive for indole acetic acid (IAA) and siderophore production, and coating wheat seed with the bacterium significantly promoted the growth of seedlings at 107 and 108 CFU/mL. Furthermore, treatment with Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10 increased activities of the wheat defense-related enzymes POD, SOD, CAT, PAL and PPO in seedlings, indicating induced resistance against pathogens. Overall, Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10 is a promising new seed-coating agent to both promote wheat growth and suppress take-all.

Keywords: take-all, biocontrol, growth-promoting, Pseudomonas chlororaphis, Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici

1. Introduction

Take-all caused by Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici (Ggt) is one of the most destructive root diseases of wheat worldwide and significantly reduces wheat grain yield after severe outbreaks [1,2,3]. The fungus G. graminis var. tritici damages wheat by rotting the root and base of the stem, disrupting the uptake and flow of water and nutrients, and eventually causing death of infected plants [2,4,5]. As with other soil-borne plant diseases, take-all is difficult to manage by current approaches such as the development of resistant cultivars, use of chemical pesticides, crop rotation and tillage [6,7,8,9,10]. However, several studies in the past thirty years have demonstrated that antagonistic bacteria and fungi can be applied to wheat to control take-all disease. This is considered to be a more efficient and ecologically friendly alternative management approach [4,11,12,13,14]. Therefore, the identification of effective antagonistic microorganisms to control take-all disease in wheat is an urgent need for sustainable wheat production.

Many studies have revealed that antagonistic bacteria not only play significant roles in controlling different plant diseases as biological control agents (BCAs), but can also increase plant growth as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) [15,16,17,18,19]. Among them, isolates of Pseudomonas have proven to be capable of producing antibiotic compounds to suppress plant pathogens such as G. graminis var. tritici, and possess plant growth-promoting characteristics such as phosphate solubilization, siderophores, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), etc. [20,21,22,23,24]. For example, P. chlororaphis 30–84 produced the antibiotic sphenazine-1-carboxylic acid (PCA) that effectively inhibited take-all [23]; P. fluorescens 2–79 also produced the antibiotics PCA that strongly inhibited G. graminis var. tritici in culture [25]; and P. fluorescens VUPf5 produced siderophores, hydrogen cyanide, protease, phenazine and volatile metabolites that suppressed take-all disease by 85% in pots [26]. Furthermore, isolates of Pseudomonas have been shown to be both BCAs and PGPRs in other plants. For example, P. aeruginosa 2apa produced IAA, salicylic acid and siderophores, and promoted tomato growth along with antimicrobial activity against a wide range of pathogens [27]. Pseudomonas aeruginosa PN1 produced IAA, cyanogens, solubilized phosphorus, siderophore, chitinase and β-1, 3-glucanase and improved the growth of chirpine seedlings along with exhibiting a strong antagonistic property against Macrophomina phaseolina [17]. In addition, inoculations with different Pseudomonas strains have triggered defense-related enzymes in plants, such as peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL) and polyphenoloxidase (PPO), indicating that they can produce induced systemic resistance against pathogens [28,29,30,31,32].

In this study, strain YB-10 was isolated from wheat rhizospheric soil and identified as Pseudomonas chlororaphis by morphology and 16S rRNA gene sequencing. It exhibited strong antagonistic activity against G. graminis var. tritici in dual cultures and was shown to have a number of potential growth-promoting and biocontrol traits. When used to coat wheat seeds, P. chlororaphis YB-10 not only promoted the growth of wheat seedlings, but also suppressed take-all caused by G. graminis var. tritici. These results demonstrated that P. chlororaphis YB-10 could be a promising BCA of wheat and PGPR against take-all disease.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Isolation of StrainYB-10

Soil sample collection and isolation of strain YB-10 from wheat rhizosphere used in this study were as previously described in [12].

2.2. Identification of Strain YB-10

A single colony of strain YB-10 was inoculated in Nutrient Broth and grown for 24 h at 30 °C, shaking at 150 rpm. Genomic DNA of YB-10 was extracted by the MiniBEST Bacterial Genomic DNA Extraction Kit Ver. 3.0 (TaKaRa, Beijing, China) following the manufacturer’s instructions. The 16S rRNA gene fragment was amplified with primers27F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and 1492R (5′-GGTTACCTTGTTACGACTT-3′). A phylogenetic tree of the 16S rRNA gene sequences was constructed with MEGA 7.0 using the neighbor joining method [33].

2.3. Detection of PGP and Antifungal Traits

IAA production was detected with the Salkowski method as described by Glickmann and Dessaux [34].

Siderophore production was determined on Chrome Azurol S blue agar (CAS) [35]. A single colony of P. chlororaphis YB-10 was inoculated on CAS and cultured at 30 °C in the dark. Siderophore production was indicated by the color change from blue to orange around the colonies.

A single colony of P. chlororaphis YB-10 was inoculated onto carboxymethylcellulose agar and incubated for 7 days at 30 °C. The plates were flooded with 1% (m/v) Congo red and then washed with distilled water. The cellulose activity was detected as clear zones around the colonies [36].

Protease activity was detected on skim milk agar (5 g NaCl, 0.1 g CaCl2, 10 g peptone, 10 g skim milk and 18 g of agar per liter (pH 7.2)). A single colony of P. chlororaphis YB-10 was placed on the medium and incubated at 30 °C for 5 days. Protease activity of P. chlororaphis YB-10 was observed by the clear zones around the colonies [37].

2.4. Plant Growth Promotion Assay of P. chlororaphis YB-10 on Wheat Seedlings

P. chlororaphis YB-10 was cultured in 100 mL NB broth for 36 h at 30 °C with shaking at 180 rpm. Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seeds of cultivar Zhengmai 366 were surface-sterilized in 75% ethanol (v/v) for 30s and then rinsed with sterile water three times. Wheat seeds were air-dried and then soaked with a suspension of P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 CFU/mL, 108 CFU/mL or 109 CFU/mL for 2 h. The seeds were then placed in a Petri dish with a diameter of 9 cm in the greenhouse at 25 °C with a 12 h light/12 h dark photoperiod for 10 days. Each treatment had three replicates. Seeds soaked with NB medium were used as control.

2.5. Biocontrol Assay of P. chlororaphis YB-10 Against Take-All inWheat

Wheat seeds were soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107~108 CFU/mL or sterile NB medium as described above. The seeds were air-dried, and 15 seeds were planted per pot (10 cm high, 10 cm diameter) filled with 350 g potting soil. The pots were placed in the greenhouse at 25 °C. Gaeumannomyces graminis var. tritici GGT-007, isolated from Xiping, Henan Province in 2014, that was previously shown to be highly virulent to wheat (data not shown), was grown on PDA for 10 days at 25 °C. A 5 mm disc of mycelium with agar from the growing edge of the colony was placed at a 1cm depth in a pot and then a wheat seed was attached to the surface of the mycelial disc. This method of inoculation was shown to achieve a 100% infection rate [12]. Four treatments were made:

  1. Seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 and not inoculated with Ggt;

  2. Seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 and inoculated with Ggt;

  3. Seeds not soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 and not inoculated with Ggt;

  4. Seeds not soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 and inoculated with Ggt.

At 3 weeks post-planting, the treated wheat seedlings were removed from pots and roots were washed free of soil. The symptoms of take-all, disease index and control efficacy were measured as per Yang et al [12]. The experiment was replicated three times.

2.6. Activities of Defense Enzymes in Wheat Seedlings

At 3 weeks post-planting, the shoots of the treated wheat seedlings were harvested and stored at −80 ℃. In brief, 0.5 g shoots were ground in liquid nitrogen, and a 1 mL extraction buffer was added. The buffer was then centrifuged, and the supernatant was removed and used for enzyme assays. The activities of SOD, POD, CAT, PAL and PPO were measured following the procedures of the manufacturer (Solarbio, Beijing, China) using an SOD assay kit (Cat. No. BC0175), POD assay kit (Cat. No. BC0095), CAT assay kit (Cat. No. BC0205), PAL assay kit (Cat. No. BC0215) and PPO assay kit (Cat. No. BC0195), respectively. Absorbance was determined by a plate reader (Tecan Spark, Tecan, Switzerland).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v21.0, one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). Means were compared with Duncan’s multiple range tests at a probability of p ≤ 0.05.

3. Results

3.1. Screening and Identification of Strain YB-10

Strain YB-10 isolated from wheat rhizospheric soil was milky-white, non-pigmented on NA and Gram-negative (Figure 1A,C). Dual cultures of strain YB-10 and G. graminis var. tritici on NA displayed strong growth inhibition of G. graminis var. tritici by YB-10 (Figure 1B). A search using the 16S rDNA sequence of YB-10 with the Basic Local Alignment Search Tool (BLAST) against the NCBI nr database demonstrated that strain YB-10 had 100% sequence homology to P. chlororaphis. The sequence data were submitted to GenBank with the accession number MW093066. The phylogenetic tree of the 16S rRNA gene sequences revealed that strain YB-10 was in a cluster of P. chlororaphis isolates (Figure 2).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

Characteristics of Pseudomonas chlororaphis YB-10. (A) Morphology of P. chlororaphis YB-10 on NA. (B) Inhibition of growth of G. graminis var. tritici by P. chlororaphis YB-10. (C) Gram staining of P. chlororaphis YB-10.

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

Phylogenetic tree of P. chlororaphis YB-10 and 12 other bacteria isolates based on 16S rDNA sequences. Bootstrap values were from 1000 replicates.

3.2. Characterization of In Vitro Antifungal and PGP Traits of P. chlororaphis YB-10

P. chlororaphis YB-10 was capable of synthesizing indole acetic acid (IAA) (Figure 3A), producing siderophores (Figure 3C), and secreting extracellular cellulase and protease (Figure 3B,D). However, P. chlororaphis YB-10 showed no phosphate solubilization or 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase activities (data not shown).

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

In vitro antifungal and PGP traits of P. chlororaphis YB-10. (A) Pink coloration indicating IAA production. (B) Clear zones indicating cellulase activity. (C) Orange halos indicating siderophore production. (D) Clear zones indicating protease activity.

3.3. Effect of P. chlororaphis YB-10 Against Take-All in Wheat Seedlings

For wheat seedlings at 21 days after G. graminis var. tritici inoculation without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 in pots under greenhouse conditions (Figure 4), symptoms of take-all, including blackened or chocolate brown lesions on the stembase and root, were observed (Figure 4D,H). Limited typical disease symptoms were observed in wheat seedlings without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation and without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10, indicating a low level of G. graminis var. tritici in the potting soil (Figure 4C,G). However, no typical disease symptoms were observed with or without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation with wheat seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 (Figure 4A,E,B,F, respectively).The disease index of wheat seedlings was 7.14 ± 0.11 and 6.67 ± 0.28 with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, but the disease index was 78.57 ± 0.47 and 51.59 ± 1.11 without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 with or without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively (Table 1). Disease incidence with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 with or without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation was only 0.07%. However, disease incidence was 92.86% ± 0.62% and 64.29% ± 0.72% without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 with or without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively. The take-all control efficacy in wheat seedlings was 86–87% with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Effect of P. chlororaphis YB-10 against take-all in wheat seedlings. (A,E) Wheat seeds treatments of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation. (B,F) Wheat seeds treatments of P. chlororaphis YB-10 with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation. (C,G) Control treatments without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation. (D,H) Control treatments with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation.

Table 1.

Disease incidence, disease index and control efficacy of P. chlororaphis YB-10 against take-all of wheat.

Treatment Disease Incidence (%) Disease Index Control Efficacy (%)
CK 64.29 ± 0.72 b 51.59 ± 1.11 b
YB-10 0.07 ± 0.00 c 6.67 ± 0.28 c 87.07 ± 0.54 a
Ggt inoculation 92.86 ± 0.62 a 78.57 ± 0.47 a
YB-10 + Ggt inoculation 0.07 ± 0.00 c 7.14 ± 0.11 c 86.16 ± 2.23 a
Open in a new tab

Note: data are the Mean ± Standard deviation (SD); Different letters (a–c) in the same column indicate significant difference at p values < 0.05 level.

3.4. Growth Promotion of Wheat Seedlings after P. chlororaphis YB-10 Inoculation

For wheat seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at different doses, P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 and 108 CFU/mL significantly promoted the growth of wheat seedlings, but P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 109 CFU/mL had an inhibitory effect on the growth of wheat seedlings (Figure 5). The fresh weights of shoots of wheat seedlings inoculated with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 and 108 CFU/mL were 1.68 ± 0.06 g and 1.72 ± 0.04 g, respectively, compared to 1.18 ± 0.07 g without inoculation with P. chlororaphis YB-10. The fresh weights of roots of wheat seedlings inoculated with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 and 108 CFU/mL were 1.53 ± 0.03 g and 1.51 ± 0.05 g, respectively, compared to 0.91 ± 0.02 g without inoculation with P. chlororaphis YB-10. The lengths of shoots of wheat seedlings inoculated with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 and 108 CFU/mL were 12.41 ± 0.52 cm and 12.43 ± 0.67 cm, respectively, compared to 8.21 ± 0.42 cm without inoculation with P. chlororaphis YB-10. Overall, seed treatment with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 and 108 CFU/mL caused a significant improvement (p < 0.05) in fresh weights of shoots and roots and in the lengths of shoots of wheat seedlings, but seed treatment with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 109 CFU/mL did not differ significantly (p > 0.05) compared with non-inoculated treatment (Table 2).

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Growth promotion of wheat seedlings by P. chlororaphis YB-10. (A) Wheat seeds soaked without P. chlororaphis YB-10. (B) Wheat seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 107 CFU/mL. (C) Wheat seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 108 CFU/mL. (D) Wheat seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 109 CFU/mL.

Table 2.

Root and shoot fresh weights and shoot lengths of wheat seedlings by P. chlororaphis YB-10.

Treatment Root Fresh Weight (g) Shoot Fresh Weight (g) Shoot Length (cm)
CK 0.91 ± 0.02 b 1.18 ± 0.07 b 8.21 ± 0.42 b
YB-10(109 CFU/mL) 0.89 ± 0.03 b 1.17 ± 0.01 b 8.255 ± 0.37 b
YB-10(108 CFU/mL) 1.51 ± 0.05 a 1.72 ± 0.04 a 12.43 ± 0.67 a
YB-10(107 CFU/mL) 1.53 ± 0.03 a 1.68 ± 0.06 a 12.41 ± 0.52 a
Open in a new tab

Note: data are Mean ± SD; Different letters (a,b) in the same column indicate significant difference at p values < 0.05 level.

3.5. Effect of P. chlororaphis YB-10 on Activities of Defense Enzymes in Wheat Seedlings

POD activity of wheat shoots was 9406.51 ± 200.20 U/g and 12,925.14 ± 998.21 U/g with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, whereas the POD activity was 7261.47 ± 251.01 U/g and 10,517.07 ± 234.12 U/g without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively (Figure 6). PPO activity of wheat shoots was 85.46 ± 6.16 U/g and 166.95 ± 4.87 U/g with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, whereas PPO activity was 70.16 ± 5.18 U/g and 128.78 ± 5.67 U/g without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively. CAT activity of wheat shoots was 201.73 ± 7.18 U/g and 387.59 ± 10.94 U/g in seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, whereas CAT activity was 161.97 ± 7.40 U/g and 241.73 ± 5.76 U/g without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively. PAL activity of wheat shoots was 39.78 ± 3.46 U/g and 57.38 ± 4.11 U/g with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, whereas PAL activity was 30.87 ± 2.33 U/g and 45.61 ± 2.47 U/g without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively. SOD activity of wheat shoots was 881.57 ± 25.97 U/g and 1514.12 ± 54.61 U/g with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively, whereas SOD activity was 748.87 ± 16.23 U/g and 1178.64 ± 62.32 U/g without seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 without or with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, respectively. In general, wheat seeds soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 resulted in significant increases in POD, SOD, CAT, PAL and PPO activities of wheat shoots regardless of G. graminis var. tritici inoculation.

Figure 6.

Figure 6

Open in a new tab

Five defense enzymes activities of wheat shoots under different treatments. peroxidase (POD), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL) and polyphenoloxidase (PPO). Data are mean ± standard deviation (SD) of three replicates; Different letters (a–d) in the same enzyme indicate significant difference at p values < 0.05 level.

4. Discussion

In recent years, many studies have demonstrated that Pseudomonas strains from the plant rhizosphere could control diseases caused by a variety of pathogens [21,38,39,40]. For example, Pseudomonas fluorescens CV6 had broad antimicrobial activity against 12 pathogens [41], and P. fluorescens VUPf5 strongly inhibited G. graminis var. tritici in vitro and greenhouse, suppressing take-all disease by 85% [26]. Many of these strains have antifungal attributes, such as β-1,3-glucanase, cellulase, protease and chitinase activities [42,43]. It is also well known that a number of Pseudomonas strains from the plant rhizosphere can promote plant growth [18,20,40,41]. These strains show multiple growth-promoting properties, including IAA production, siderophore production, hydrogen cyanide production and phosphate solubilization [42,43]. Further screening of new Pseudomonas isolates is desirable for creating new options for controlling plant diseases and promoting plant growth in sustainable agriculture systems.

In this study, P. chlororaphis strain YB-10 was isolated from wheat rhizosphere, which had cellulose and protease activities and suppressed take-all caused by G. graminis var. tritici with very high efficacy. In addition, P. chlororaphis YB-10 was positive for IAA and siderophore production and significantly promoted the growth of wheat seedlings at 107 and 108 CFU/mL. However, the growth promotion effect was dose-dependent as wheat seedlings soaked with P. chlororaphis YB-10 at 109 CFU/mL did not differ significantly compared with non-inoculated treatment. Therefore, P. chlororaphis YB-10 showed itself to be an effective PGPR for wheat seedlings and BCA against take-all of wheat.

In nature, plants are attacked by various pathogens inducing the production of different defense-related enzymes that play important roles in disease resistance [44,45]. The level of defense-related enzymes, such as POD, PPO, CAT, PAL and SOD, have been correlated with plant disease resistance [46,47]. Many studies have reported that biocontrol agents such as P. fluorescens, Pseudomonas sp. 23S, Bacillus subtilis, P. chlororaphis ToZa7 and Clonostachys rosea IK726 induced the expression of defense-related enzymes including SOD, CAT, PAL and PPO [24,31,46,48,49]. In this study, the activities of POD, PPO, CAT, PAL and SOD were increased significantly with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 in healthy plants (i.e., without G. graminis var. tritici inoculation); activities were also increased with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation alone, indicating that the enzymes can be induced by the bacterium or pathogen alone. However, the highest levels detected were with seed treatment of P. chlororaphis YB-10 with G. graminis var. tritici inoculation, indicating increased levels of induction compared to those caused by G. graminis var. tritici infection. However, the promotion of plant growth by P. chlororaphis YB-10 indicates that there are multiple effects on the plants, and some of those other effects could have contributed to controlling take-all disease.

In summary, this is the first report that the wheat rhizosphere bacterium, P. chlororaphis, can both promote wheat growth and control take-all disease. Strain YB-10 was positive for IAA and siderophore production and had extracellular protease and cellulase activities, all of which could contribute to its beneficial effects. Moreover, seed treatment with P. chlororaphis YB-10 could later increase activities of defense-related enzymes in shoots. This indicates that the control of take-all by P. chlororaphis YB-10 could be related to induced systemic resistance (ISR) in the wheat seedlings. ISR has previously been shown to occur during the control of wheat take-all using treatments with other rhizobacterial species, and it is believed that ISR is the main mechanism for their ability to suppress take-all disease [50].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, L.Y. and Q.W.; methodology, L.X., X.D.; software, W.X., X.D.; validation, J.Z., M.X. and R.S.; formal analysis, W.X.; investigation, Y.P.; resources, C.W.; data curation, W.X.; writing—original draft preparation, W.X.; writing—review and editing, P.H.G., Q.W. and L.Y.; visualization, W.X.; project administration, L.Y.; funding acquisition, L.Y., W.X. and M.X.; All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Science-Technology Foundation for Outstanding Young Scientists of Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2018YQ16), Major Achievement Cultivation Program of Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (20191101004), Independent Innovation Special Fund of Henan Academy of Agricultural Sciences (2020ZC31 and 2020ZC56), The Central Government Guiding Local Projects (2020 [44]).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

All the authors declare that there was no potential conflict of commercial or financial interests.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Kwak Y.S., Weller D.M. Take-all of Wheat and Natural Disease Suppression: A Review. Plant Pathol. J. 2013;29:125–135. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.SI.07.2012.0112. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.James C.R. Take-all of wheat. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2003;62:73–86. doi: 10.1016/S0885-5765(03)00042-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Zhang J., Yan H., Xia M., Han X., Xie L., Goodwin P.H., Quan X., Sun R., Wu C., Yang L. Wheat root transcriptional responses against Gaeumannomycesgraminis var. tritici. Phytopathol. Res. 2020;2:1–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Gholami M., Amini J., Abdollahzadeh J., Ashengroph M. Basidiomycetes fungi as biocontrol agents against take-all disease of wheat. Biol. Control. 2019;130:34–43. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.12.012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Yang L., Han X., Zhang F., Goodwin P.H., Yang Y., Li J., Xia M., Sun R., Jia B., Zhang J., et al. Screening Bacillus species as biological control agents of Gaeumannomycesgraminis var. Tritici on wheat. Biol. Control. 2018;118:1–9. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Bateman G.L. Prospects for fungicidal control of take-all of wheat. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2010;96:275–282. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.1980.tb04777.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nelson R., Wiesner-Hanks T., Wisser R., Balint-Kurti P. Navigating complexity to breed disease-resistant crops. Nat. Rev. Genet. 2018;19:21–33. doi: 10.1038/nrg.2017.82. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Woźniak A., Soroka M. Effect of crop rotation and tillage system on the weed infestation and yield of spring wheat and on soil properties. Appl. Ecol. Environ. Res. 2018;16:3087–3096. doi: 10.15666/aeer/1603_30873096. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Rothrock C.S. Take-all of wheat as affected by tillage and wheat-soybean doublecropping. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987;19:307–311. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(87)90014-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Bateman G.L. Progress in research on the control of take-all in cereals with fungicides: A review. Crop. Prot. 1989;8:75–81. doi: 10.1016/0261-2194(89)90079-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Maplestone P.A., Campbell R. Colonization of roots of wheat seedlings by bacilli proposed as biocontrol agents against take-all. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1989;21:543–550. doi: 10.1016/0038-0717(89)90128-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Yang L., Quan X., Xue B., Goodwin P.H., Lu S., Wang J., Du W., Wu C. Isolation and identification of Bacillus subtilis strain YB-05 and its antifungal substances showing antagonism against Gaeumannomycesgraminis var. tritici. Biol. Control. 2015;85:52–58. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.12.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Liu B., Qiao H., Huang L., Buchenauer H., Han Q., Kang Z., Gong Y. Biological control of take-all in wheat by endophytic Bacillus subtilis E1R-j and potential mode of action. Biol. Control. 2009;49:277–285. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2009.02.007. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Huang Z., Bonsall R.F., Mavrodi D.V., Weller D.M., Thomashow L.S. Transformation of Pseudomonas fluorescens with genes for biosynthesis of phenazine-1-carboxylic acid improves biocontrol of rhizoctonia root rot and in situ antibiotic production. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2004;49:243–251. doi: 10.1016/j.femsec.2004.03.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Liu K., McInroy J.A., Hu C.H., Kloepper J.W. Mixtures of Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Enhance Biological Control of Multiple Plant Diseases and Plant-Growth Promotion in the Presence of Pathogens. Plant Dis. 2018;102:67–72. doi: 10.1094/PDIS-04-17-0478-RE. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Hayat R., Ali S., Amara U., Khalid R., Ahmed I. Soil beneficial bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion: A review. Ann. Microbiol. 2010;60:579–598. doi: 10.1007/s13213-010-0117-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Singh N., Kumar S., Bajpai V.K., Dubey R.C., Maheshwari D.K., Kang S.C. Biological control of Macrophominaphaseolina by chemotactic fluorescent Pseudomonas aeruginosa PN1 and its plant growth promotory activity in chir-pine. Crop. Prot. 2010;29:1142–1147. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2010.04.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Hernández-León R., Rojas-Solís D., Contreras-Pérez M., del Carmen Orozco-Mosqueda M. Characterization of the antifungal and plant growth-promoting effects of diffusible and volatile organic compounds produced by Pseudomonas fluorescens strains. Biol. Control. 2015;81:83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2014.11.011. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Santoyo G., Orozco-Mosqueda M.D.C., Govindappa M. Mechanisms of biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activity in soil bacterial species of Bacillus and Pseudomonas: A review. Biocontrol Sci. Technol. 2012;22:855–872. doi: 10.1080/09583157.2012.694413. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Panpatte D.G., Jhala Y.K., Shelat H.N., Vyas R.V. Pseudomonas Fluorescens: A Promising Biocontrol Agent and PGPR for Sustainable Agriculture. Springer; New Delhi, India: 2016. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Agaras B.C., Noguera F., Anta G.G., Wall L.G., Valverde C. Biocontrol potential index of pseudomonads, instead of their direct-growth promotion traits, is a predictor of seed inoculation effect on crop productivity under field conditions. Biol. Control. 2020;143:104209. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2020.104209. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Jain R., Pandey A. A phenazine-1-carboxylic acid producing polyextremophilic Pseudomonas chlororaphis (MCC2693) strain, isolated from mountain ecosystem, possesses biocontrol and plant growth promotion abilities. Microbiol. Res. 2016;190:63–71. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2016.04.017. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Mazzola M., Fujimoto D.K., Thomashow L.S., Cook R.J. Variation in Sensitivity of Gaeumannomycesgraminis to Antibiotics Produced by Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. and Effect on Biological Control of Take-All of Wheat. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995;61:2554–2559. doi: 10.1128/aem.61.7.2554-2559.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Kamou N.N., Cazorla F., Kandylas G., Lagopodi A.L. Induction of defense-related genes in tomato plants after treatments with the biocontrol agents Pseudomonas chlororaphis ToZa7 and Clonostachys rosea IK726. Arch. Microbiol. 2020;202:257–267. doi: 10.1007/s00203-019-01739-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Thomashow L.S., Weller D.M. Role of a phenazine antibiotic from Pseudomonas fluorescens in biological control of Gaeumannomycesgraminis var. tritici. J. Bacteriol. 1988;170:3499–3508. doi: 10.1128/jb.170.8.3499-3508.1988. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Lagzian A., Saberi Riseh R., Khodaygan P., Sedaghati E., Dashti H. Introduced Pseudomonas fluorescens VUPf5 as an important biocontrol agent for controlling Gaeumannomycesgraminis var. tritici the causal agent of take-all disease in wheat. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot. 2013;46:2104–2116. doi: 10.1080/03235408.2013.785123. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Hariprasad P., Chandrashekar S., Singh S.B., Niranjana S.R. Mechanisms of plant growth promotion and disease suppression by Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain 2apa. J. Basic Microbiol. 2014;54:792–801. doi: 10.1002/jobm.201200491. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Vanitha S.C., Umesha S. Pseudomonas fluorescens mediated systemic resistance in tomato is driven through an elevated synthesis of defense enzymes. Biol. Plantarum. 2011;55:317–322. doi: 10.1007/s10535-011-0045-3. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Wang M., Zhao L., Zhang X., Dhanasekaran S., Abdelhai M.H., Yang Q., Jiang Z., Zhang H. Study on biocontrol of postharvest decay of table grapes caused by Penicilliumrubens and the possible resistance mechanisms by Yarrowialipolytica. Biol. Control. 2019;130:113–117. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2018.11.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Li Q., Li C., Li P., Zhang H., Zhang X., Zheng X., Yang Q., Apaliya M.T., Boateng N.A.S., Sun Y. The biocontrol effect of Sporidioboluspararoseus Y16 against postharvest diseases in table grapes caused by Aspergillus niger and the possible mechanisms involved. Biol. Control. 2017;113:18–25. doi: 10.1016/j.biocontrol.2017.06.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Li S.M., Hua G.G., Liu H.X., Guo J.H. Analysis of defence enzymes induced by antagonistic bacterium Bacillus subtilis strain AR12 towards Ralstonia solanacearum in tomato. Ann. Microbiol. 2008;58:573–578. doi: 10.1007/BF03175560. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Qin X., Xiao H., Xue C., Yu Z., Yang R., Cai Z., Si L. Biocontrol of gray mold in grapes with the yeast Hanseniasporauvarum alone and in combination with salicylic acid or sodium bicarbonate. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2015;100:160–167. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2014.09.010. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Kumar S., Stecher G., Tamura K. MEGA7: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis Version 7.0 for Bigger Datasets. Mol Biol. Evol. 2016;33:1870–1874. doi: 10.1093/molbev/msw054. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Glickmann E., Dessaux Y. A critical examination of the specificity of the salkowski reagent for indolic compounds produced by phytopathogenic bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1995;61:793–796. doi: 10.1128/aem.61.2.793-796.1995. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Schwyn B., Neilands J.B. Universal chemical assay for the detection and determination of siderophores. Anal. Biochem. 1987;160:47–56. doi: 10.1016/0003-2697(87)90612-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Teather R.M., Wood P.J. Use of Congo red-polysaccharide interactions in enumeration and characterization of cellulolytic bacteria from the bovine rumen. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1982;43:777–780. doi: 10.1128/aem.43.4.777-780.1982. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Kazanas N. Proteolytic activity of microorganisms isolated from freshwater fish. Appl. Microbiol. 1968;16:128–132. doi: 10.1128/am.16.1.128-132.1968. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Wahyudi A.T., Astuti R.I. Screening of Pseudomonas sp. Isolated from Rhizosphere of Soybean Plant as Plant Growth Promoter and Biocontrol Agent. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2011;6:134–141. doi: 10.3844/ajabssp.2011.134.141. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Gopalakrishnan S., Upadhyaya H.D., Vadlamud S. Plant growth-promoting traits of biocontrol potential bacteria isolated from rice rhizosphere. Springerplus. 2012;1:1–7. doi: 10.1186/2193-1801-1-71. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.David B.V. Chapter 10– Pseudomonas fluorescens: A Plant-Growth-Promoting Rhizobacterium (PGPR) With Potential Role in Biocontrol of Pests of Crops. Crop. Improv. Through Microb. Biotechnol. 2018:221–243. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63987-5.00010-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Maleki M., Mostafaee S., Mokhtarnejad L., Farzaneh M. Characterization of’Pseudomonas fluorescens’ Strain CV6 Isolated from Cucumber Rhizosphere in Varamin as a Potential Biocontrol Agent. Aust. J. Crop. Sci. 2010;4:676–683. [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Gopalakrishnan S., Srinivas V., Prakash B., Sathya A., Vijayabharathi R. Plant growth-promoting traits of Pseudomonas geniculata isolated from chickpea nodules. 3 Biotech. 2015;5:653–661. doi: 10.1007/s13205-014-0263-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Uzair B., Kausar R., Bano S.A., Fatima S., Badshah M., Habiba U., Fasim F. Isolation and Molecular Characterization of a Model Antagonistic Pseudomonas aeruginosa Divulging In Vitro Plant Growth Promoting Characteristics. BioMed Res. Int. 2018;2018:6147380. doi: 10.1155/2018/6147380. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Prasannath K. Plant defense-related enzymes against pathogens: A review. AGRIEAST J. Agric. Sci. 2017;11:38. doi: 10.4038/agrieast.v11i1.33. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Zhao Y., Tu K., Shao X., Jing W., Su Z. Effects of the yeast Pichia guilliermondii against Rhizopus nigricans on tomato fruit. Postharvest Biol. Technol. 2008;49:113–120. doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2008.01.001. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Anand T., Chandrasekaran A., Kuttalam S., Raguchander T., Prakasam V., Samiyappan R. Association of some plant defense enzyme activities with systemic resistance to early leaf blight and leaf spot induced in tomato plants by azoxystrobin and Pseudomonas fluorescens. J. Plant Interact. 2007;2:233–244. doi: 10.1080/17429140701708985. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Ethan A., Shaukat A., Emmanuel B., Yang Y., Madhav N. Disease Resistance Mechanisms in Plants. Genes. 2018;9:339. doi: 10.3390/genes9070339. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Chen F., Wang M., Zheng Y., Luo J., Yang X., Wang X. Quantitative changes of plant defense enzymes and phytohormone in biocontrol of cucumber Fusarium wilt by Bacillus subtilis B579. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2010;26:675–684. doi: 10.1007/s11274-009-0222-0. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Takishita Y., Charron J.B., Smith D.L. Biocontrol Rhizobacterium Pseudomonassp. 23S Induces Systemic Resistance in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Against Bacterial Canker Clavibactermichiganensis subsp. michiganensis. Front. Microbiol. 2018;9:2119. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.02119. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Jasem A.M., Sharifi R., Abbasi S. Induced systemic resistance to wheat take-all disease by probiotic bacteria. J. PlantProtection Res. 2018;58:304–310. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

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

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Articles from Pathogens are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES