Skip to main content
Frontiers in Plant Science logoLink to Frontiers in Plant Science
. 2022 Jul 29;13:961840. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.961840

Priming seeds for the future: Plant immune memory and application in crop protection

Zige Yang 1, Pengfei Zhi 1, Cheng Chang 1,*
PMCID: PMC9372760  PMID: 35968080

Abstract

Plants have evolved adaptive strategies to cope with pathogen infections that seriously threaten plant viability and crop productivity. Upon the perception of invading pathogens, the plant immune system is primed, establishing an immune memory that allows primed plants to respond more efficiently to the upcoming pathogen attacks. Physiological, transcriptional, metabolic, and epigenetic changes are induced during defense priming, which is essential to the establishment and maintenance of plant immune memory. As an environmental-friendly technique in crop protection, seed priming could effectively induce plant immune memory. In this review, we highlighted the recent advances in the establishment and maintenance mechanisms of plant defense priming and the immune memory associated, and discussed strategies and challenges in exploiting seed priming on crops to enhance disease resistance.

Keywords: seed priming, immune memory, epigenetics, disease resistance, crop protection

Introduction

Plants employ a plethora of mechanisms to defend against invading pathogens, including virus, bacteria, fungi, oomycetes, and pests (Zhou and Zhang, 2020). Thorns, spikes, cuticles, cell walls, and antimicrobial secondary metabolites constitute the plant preformed defense to deter pathogens. As an inducible defense mechanism, pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) is initiated by cell surface-localized pattern-recognition receptors (PRRs) upon the perception of pathogen patterns. In addition, plants utilize intracellular nucleotide-binding domain leucine-rich repeat-containing receptors (NLRs) to detect pathogen effector proteins and activate effector-triggered immunity (ETI; Yu et al., 2017; Saur et al., 2021). PTI and ETI are initiated by different activation mechanisms and usually have distinct dynamics and amplitude. Recent studies revealed that PTI and ETI converge into some common downstream signaling pathways and potentiate each other in the unified plant immunity (Ngou et al., 2021; Yuan et al., 2021a,b).

During long-term coevolution with pathogens, plants have acquired adaptive strategies to cope with recurrent pathogen infections. Perception of initial pathogens by plants could induce a primed state marked by the enhanced activation of defense responses upon the subsequent pathogen challenges (Reimer-Michalski and Conrath, 2016; Mauch-Mani et al., 2017). This defense priming is typically associated with induced resistance (IR) such as systemic acquired resistance (SAR), induced systemic resistance (ISR), and mycorrhiza-induced resistance (MIR; Reimer-Michalski and Conrath, 2016; Mauch-Mani et al., 2017). Defense priming requires immune memory to store the changes or information acquired from the initial pathogen perception, and retrieves this information upon a later pathogen challenge (Ramirez-Prado et al., 2018). As an environmental-friendly, pre-sowing enhancement technique, seed priming could effectively induce plant immune memory and have a great potential in sustainable crop protection (Jogaiah et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2021; Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021; Pal et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2021; Kappel et al., 2022). Herein, we summarized recent development on the establishment and maintenance mechanisms of plant defense priming and the immune memory associated. Strategies, limitations, and future directions in exploiting seed priming for crop protection are discussed.

Plant defense priming and immune memory

Primed state of plant immune system could be induced by various biological, physical, and chemical stimuli. Typically, pathogens and their derived molecules such as patterns and effectors could act as warning signals to trigger plant defense priming (Abdul Malik et al., 2020). Furthermore, beneficial interactions with root-colonizing microorganisms could lead to the establishment of primed state (Yu et al., 2022). Moreover, herbivore-associated signals such as physical contacts, oral secretions, and oviposition fluids could function as priming stimuli (Mauch-Mani et al., 2017). Interestingly, certain abiotic stresses such as extreme temperatures and mechanical wounding could prime the plant immune system (cross-priming; Liu et al., 2022). Defense-related phytohormones jasmonic acid (JA), salicylic acid (SA), and their derivatives could induce plant defense priming when applied exogenously (Mauch-Mani et al., 2017). Synthetic functional SA analogs N-cyanomethyl-2-chloro isonicotinic acid (NCI), benzothiadiazole (BTH)/acibenzolar-S-methyl (ASM), and isotianil are potent priming inducers. In addition, a plethora of plant metabolites and related synthetic chemicals such as sulforaphane (SFN), β-amino acids (R)-beta-homoserine (RBH), glycerol, and enzyme ascorbate oxidase (AO) were recently identified as defense priming agents (Buswell et al., 2018; Zhou and Wang, 2018; Li et al., 2020; Singh et al., 2021). Due to their unique physicochemical properties, nanomaterials such as nanoparticles and nanoemulsions are increasingly employed in plant defense priming (Do Espirito Santo Pereira et al., 2021). Notably, functional SA analog BTH/ASM, non-protein amino acid β-aminobutyric acid (BABA), and chitin polymeric derivative chitosan have been successfully developed into commercial priming agents (Yassin et al., 2021).

Upon perception of initial priming stimuli, the plant would enter into the priming phase and undergo physiological, transcriptional, metabolic, and epigenetic changes (Mauch-Mani et al., 2017). Although most of these changes are transient and disappear quickly after the initial stimuli were removed, some alterations could be retained to form plant somatic immune memory (Lämke and Bäurle, 2017). In a few cases, these changes occur in plant reproductive tissues including gametes to form intergenerational or transgenerational immune memory. Generally, plant intergenerational immune memory is unstable during meiosis and affects only one stress-free generation. In contrast, plant transgenerational immune memory is meiotically stable and could be detected in two or more stress-free generations (Ramírez-Carrasco et al., 2017).

Physiological, transcriptional, and metabolic changes during plant defense priming

After perception of invading pathogens, plants induce defense responses such as elevation in cytoplasmic calcium concentration ([Ca2+]cyt), ROS burst, and callose deposition (Balmer et al., 2015; Cao et al., 2017; Hake and Romeis, 2019). Defense-related calcium changes were reported in various plant cells or tissues in response to the treatment with synthetic PAMPs oligopeptide flg22, pep13, liposaccharides, and chitin (Balmer et al., 2015). Interestingly, noctuid moth (Spodoptera littoralis) feeding could induce a systemic [Ca2+]cyt elevation in Arabidopsis, but this calcium response in Arabidopsis systemic tissues was not observed upon exposure to the synthetic PAMP flg22 (Cao et al., 2017). Pretreatment with polypeptide extract from dry mycelium of Penicillium chrysogenum (PDMP) could induce disease resistance against tobacco mosaic virus (TMV) in tobacco plants (Li et al., 2021b). Recent RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) and fluorescence microscopy demonstrated that pretreatment with PDMP inhibited TMV movement by increasing callose deposition around plasmodesmata (Li et al., 2021b). However, PDMP-induced callose deposition was not observed in the ABA biosynthesis mutant, which could be rescued by exogenous ABA treatment (Li et al., 2021b). These results suggested that PDMP-pretreatment induced ABA biosynthesis-dependent callose priming to protect tobacco plants from TMV infection (Li et al., 2021b).

Massive transcriptional reprogramming has been reported to take place in response to pathogen infections and priming agent treatments in model and crop plants. Although enhanced resistance against P. syringae pv. phaseolicola infection was induced by non-protein amino acid BABA and SA analog INA in common bean (P. vulgaris), but BABA and INA primed different defense-related genes, suggesting that distinct transcriptomic reprogramming takes place in response to different priming stimuli (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2016). Consistent with this, a transcriptomic analysis showed that 33 genes were specifically induced by the priming agent sulfated laminarin (PS3) but not by laminarin (Lam) in grapevine (Vitis vinifera; Gauthier et al., 2014). Transcriptomic reprogramming induced by priming stimuli ultimately results in massive proteomic changes in primed plants. Indeed, accumulation of MPK3/6, PR proteins, pattern recognition receptor FLS2, and coreceptor BAK1 was primed by BABA and BTH treatment in Arabidopsis thaliana, Lactuca sativa, and Solanum tuberosum (Beckers et al., 2009; Tateda et al., 2014; Baccelli and Mauch-Mani, 2016). Some of these transcriptomic and proteomic changes would confer primed plant enhanced responsiveness to the subsequent pathogen infections.

To prepare for the incoming pathogens, primed plants usually undergo metabolic changes in the biosynthesis of primary and secondary metabolites (Frost et al., 2008; War et al., 2011; Brosset and Blande, 2022). It was recently demonstrated that BABA treatment induced resistance to Botrytis cinerea and affected the contents of soluble sugar and phenylpropanoid metabolites in grape berries (Li et al., 2021a). RNA-seq and comparative transcriptomic analysis revealed that treatment of grapes with 100 mM BABA relatively upregulated genes associated with phenylpropanoid biosynthesis compared with grapes subjected to 10 mM BABA treatment. These results suggested that the BABA-primed defense determines alterations in sucrose and phenylpropanoid metabolism in postharvest grapes (Li et al., 2021a). Interestingly, the grape MYB-type transcription factor VvMYB44 directly activates the expression of sucrose and phenylpropanoid metabolism-related genes, and might participate in BABA-induced priming (Li et al., 2021a).

Epigenetic mechanisms of plant defense priming

In plants, methylation of cytosine to 5-methylcytosine (5-mC) mainly occurs in the sequence context of CG, CHG, and CHH (H is A, C, or T; Zhang et al., 2006; Elhamamsy, 2016; Kong et al., 2020; Zhi and Chang, 2021). Plant DNA cytosine methylation profile is initially established via the RNA-dependent DNA methylation (RdDM) pathway involving the DNA methyltransferase DOMAINS REARRANGED METHYLTRANFERASE 2 (DRM2), and maintained by DNA methyltransferases METHYLTRANSFERASE 1 (MET1), CHROMOMETHYLASE 2 (CMT2) and CMT3 during mitosis and meiosis (Yaari et al., 2019; Erdmann and Picard, 2020). As a reversible epigenetic mark, 5-mC could be directly removed by DNA glycosylases such as REPRESSOR OF SILENCING 1 (ROS1), DEMETER (DME), DEMETER-LIKE 2 (DML2), and DML3 in Arabidopsis (Zhu, 2009; Tang et al., 2016). DNA methylation occurs in various genomic regions including gene promoters and transposable elements (Chan et al., 2005; Law and Jacobsen, 2010). Generally, gene promoter hypermethylation is associated with gene repression, whereas transposable element hypermethylation contributes to the TEs silencing and genome stability maintenance (Elhamamsy, 2016; Zhi and Chang, 2021). Genome-wide DNA hypomethylation induced by invading pathogens and/or priming agents has been widely observed in a wide range of plant species, which has been extensively discussed in prior reviews (Atighi et al., 2020; Annacondia et al., 2021; Zhi and Chang, 2021; Huang and Jin, 2022).

Although DNA cytosine methylation usually affects the expression of nearby defense genes in cis, in trans-regulation by DNA methylation might be more important to plant defense priming (van Hulten et al., 2006). Treatment of priming agent BABA leads to a genome-wide DNA cytosine hypomethylation in tomatoes (Catoni et al., 2022). DNA methylome and transcriptome analysis revealed that about 80% of primed tomato genes did not contain any differentially methylated regions (DMRs), suggesting that DNA cytosine methylation regulates the majority of defense-related transcription in-trans (Catoni et al., 2022). PstDC3000-triggered SAR is transmitted to at least two stress-free generations, and this transgenerational SAR was potentiated in the DNA hypomethylation mutant dmr1dmr2ctm3 (ddc; Luna et al., 2012). This study supports the involvement of DNA cytosine methylation in the generational transmission of plant immune memory. Consistent with this, DNA cytosine methylation at the promoter region of the R3a resistance gene is associated with the potato intergenerational resistance against late blight disease (Meller et al., 2018). In Arabidopsis, mitochondrial stress (MS) triggered by exogenous applications of antimycin A (AA) could induce plant resistance (MS-IR) against the biotrophic oomycete pathogen Hyaloperonospora arabidopsidis (Hpa; López Sánchez et al., 2021). It was demonstrated that the MS-IR could be transmitted to one stress-free generation (López Sánchez et al., 2021). Notably, this intergenerational MS-IR is compromised in the DNA hypomethylation mutant nrpe1 and DNA hypermethylation mutant ros1, implicating that DNA cytosine (de)methylation machinery gets involved in the generational transmission of MS-IR (López Sánchez et al., 2021).

N-terminal histone tails stretching out of the nucleosome core could be subject to various modifications such as acetylation and methylation (Imhof and Wolffe, 1998; Tessarz and Kouzarides, 2014; Liu and Chang, 2021; Peng et al., 2021). Histone acetylation catalyzed by histone acetyltransferase (HAT) usually facilitates gene transcription, whereas histone deacetylation mediated by histone deacetylase (HDAC) could repress gene expression. In contrast, histone methylation co-regulated by histone methyltransferase and histone demethylase contributes to both gene repression and activation. Generally, H3K4me3 and H3K36me3 act as active chromatin marks, whereas H3K9me3 and H3K27me3 are linked to repressive chromatin states (Black et al., 2012). Chromatin immunoprecipitation (ChIP) analysis revealed enrichment of permissive chromatin marks H3K4me3 and H3K36me3 at defense-associated genes was induced by BABA and INA treatments in the common bean (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2016, 2021). Notably, BABA application could induce the bistable deposition of permissive mark H3K4me2 and repressive mark H3K27me3 on defense-related genes Non-expressor of PR genes (NPR1) and Suppressor of NPR1 (SNI1) in potato (Meller et al., 2018). This switchable chromatin state was proposed to be associated with the enhanced responsiveness of defense genes in primed plants (Meller et al., 2018).

Functional characterization of histone-modifying enzymes sheds novel light on the epigenetic regulation of plant defense priming and immune memory. AtLDL1 and AtLDL2 were identified as two Arabidopsis homologs of human lysine-specific demethylase1-like1 (LDL1; Noh et al., 2021). The ldl1 ldl2 double mutant displayed increased H3K4me1 accumulation at the promoter regions of defense-related genes, potentiated defense-related transcription, and enhanced disease resistance against the secondary Pseudomonas infection (Noh et al., 2021). This evidence supports that LDL1 and lLDL2 negatively regulate the defense priming via the epigenetic suppression of defense-related genes (Noh et al., 2021). The contribution of histone modification to the generational transmission of plant immune memory has been supported by current evidence. BABA treatment could enhance the potato resistance against the oomycete pathogen P. infestans, and this pronounced disease resistance could be transmitted to at least one stress-free generation (Meller et al., 2018). Notably, the enhanced deposition of permissive epigenetic mark H3K4me2 was observed at SA-responsive genes such as StPR1 and StPR2 in both BABA-primed (F0) parent plant and its progeny (F1) in the absence of P. infestans challenge (Meller et al., 2018). This study revealed that the epigenetic mark H3K4me2 might contribute to the generational transmission of immune memory in potatoes (Meller et al., 2018).

In response to developmental and environmental cues, chromatin structure is dynamically and tightly regulated by various modulators such as histone chaperones and chromatin remodelers (Zhou et al., 2015; Song et al., 2021). As a major histone chaperone, CHROMATIN ASSEMBLY FACTOR 1 (CAF-1) could associate with the replisome and gets involved in the de novo assembly of histone H3 and H4 into nucleosomes (Han et al., 2015; Mozgová et al., 2015; Muñoz-Viana et al., 2017). Nucleosome occupancy micrococcal nuclease (MNase) assays revealed low nucleosome enrichment at common bean (P. vulgaris) PATHOGENESIS RELATED GENE-1 gene (PvPR1) was induced by either INA treatment or Pseudomonas syringae pv. phaseolicola NPS3121 (PspNPS3121) infection (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021). This study suggested that chromatin structure at defense-related genes was changed by pathogen infections and/or priming agent treatments. Consistent with this, BABA treatment and SA application both lead to reduced nucleosome occupancy at defense-related genes PR1, PR5, WRKY6, and WRKY53 in Arabidopsis (Mozgová et al., 2015). Notably, chromatin features such as low nucleosome occupancy at defense-related genes in CAF-1 mutants fasciata2 (fas2) resemble BABA-primed or SA-treated wild-type plants, suggesting that histone chaperone CAF-1 suppresses chromatin structure changes essential for plant defense priming (Mozgová et al., 2015). In addition to histone chaperons, chromatin remodelers regulate chromatin structure changes in plant defense response and priming. Chromatin remodeling factor DDM1 is a SWI2/SNF2-like protein (Brzeski and Jerzmanowski, 2003). Loss of DDM1 functions resulted in decreased DNA cytosine methylation in the Arabidopsis NB-LRR-encoding genes (Li et al., 2010; Kong et al., 2018). Another Arabidopsis chromatin remodeling factor MOM1 was demonstrated to regulate the expression of immune receptor genes by targeting distal pericentromeric transposable elements (Cambiagno et al., 2018). Interestingly, treatment with priming compound BIT (1,2-benzisothiazol-3(2 h)-one,1, 1-dioxide) in rice could inhibit the expression of the rice chromatin remodeler gene BRHIS1, and attenuate the suppression of BRHIS1 on defense-related transcription (Li et al., 2015). This study suggested a potential role of chromatin remodeler BRHIS1 in repressing chromatin remodeling required for defense priming in rice (Li et al., 2015).

Strategies and challenges in exploiting seed priming to improve crop disease resistance

Seed priming is a feasible, pre-sowing enhancement technique and has been widely employed in the commercial production of crop seeds (Paparella et al., 2015). As extensively discussed in prior reviews, seed priming initiates multiple pre-germinative metabolisms, including enzyme activation, energy production, metabolites biosynthesis, and DNA repair (Hussain et al., 2016). Seed priming could secure the enhanced and uniformed seed germination and seedling establishment under field conditions, and greatly contributes to the improvement of crop growth and production (Marthandan et al., 2020; Johnson and Puthur, 2021). Increasing evidence revealed that seed priming could induce plant immune memory that is either stably maintained throughout developmental stages or transmitted over generations (Jogaiah et al., 2020; Joshi et al., 2021; Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021; Pal et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2021; Kappel et al., 2022). As summarized in Table 1, different types of seed priming approaches such as biological priming, chemical priming, and nanomaterials priming have been successfully established to protect crop plants against pathogen infections.

Table 1.

Summary of seed priming approaches for crop disease resistance improvement.

Priming approach category Priming stimuli Crop species Priming impact and pathways affected Type of immune memory Crop disease resistance retest treatment References
Biological priming Trichoderma harzianum TriH_JSB27 Solanum lycopersicum T. harzianum TriH_JSB27 -primed tomato plants exhibited induction of defense-related SlPAL genes. Somatic immune memory Primed tomato plants exhibited enhanced disease resistance against Ralstonia solanacearum. Jogaiah et al., 2013
Pseudomonas fluorescens Pennisetum glaucum P. fluorescens -primed pearl millet plants exhibited significant changes in protein abundance. Somatic immune memory Primed pearl millet plants displayed increased disease resistance against downy mildew. Anup et al., 2015
T. longibrachiatum Allium cepa T. longibrachiatum-primed onion plants exhibited accumulation of stress-responsive metabolites. Somatic immune memory Primed onion plants exhibited enhanced disease resistance against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cepa (FOC) infection. Abdelrahman et al., 2016
Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, P. fluorescens Withania somnifera Priming of Ashwagandha with two bacteria combinations induced plant physiological and transcriptional changes. Somatic immune memory Primed Ashwagandha plants exhibited increased disease resistance against Alternaria alternata. Mishra et al., 2018
T. harzianum, T. asperellum, Paenibacillus dendritiformis Capsicum annuum Priming of chilli with T. harzianum, T. asperellum, and P. dendritiformis induced plant physiological, transcriptional, and metabolic changes. Somatic immune memory Primed chilli plants exhibited increased disease resistance against anthracnose disease. Yadav et al., 2021
T. atroviride Beta vulgaris T. atroviride-primed sugar beet plants exhibited upregulation of BvPR3 gene. Somatic immune memory Priming of sugar beet plants with T. atroviride decreases the severity of CLS disease. Kappel et al., 2022
Heat-stable metabolites of B. gaemokensis strain PB69 Cucumis sativus, C. annuum Priming of cucumber and pepper with heat-stable bacterial metabolites induced expression of defense-related genes. Somatic immune memory Primed cucumber and pepper plants exhibited increased resistance against Pseudomonas syringae pv. lachrymans. Song et al., 2017
Total crude protein (TCP) extract of Trichoderma spp. P. glaucum Priming of pearl millet with TCP from Trichoderma spp. enhanced levels of peroxidase and lipoxygenase Somatic immune memory Primed pearl millet plants displayed enhanced disease resistance against downy mildew. Nandini et al., 2017
Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) elicitors isolated from P. fluorescens P. glaucum Priming of pearl millet with LPS induced ROS burst, callose deposition, and induction of PR genes. Somatic immune memory Primed pearl millet plants exhibited increased disease resistance against downy mildew disease. Lavanya et al., 2018
Salicylic acid Solanum melongena,
S. lycopersicum
Priming of eggplant plants with SA induced expression of MPK1, GPX, and PRs, whereas SA seed-primed tomato plants exhibited induction of APx, CAT and GR. Somatic immune memory Primed eggplant and tomato plants exhibited increased disease resistance against Verticillium wilt, and bacterial spot disease, respectively. Mahesh et al., 2017; Srinivasa et al., 2022
Jasmonic acid S. lycopersicum JA-primed tomato plants exhibited enhanced expression of the JA-dependent defense gene PinII. Somatic immune memory Primed tomato plants exhibited resistance to herbivory by spider mites, caterpillars aphids, and infection of B. cinerea. Worrall et al., 2012
Methyl jasmonate S. lycopersicum MeJA seed-primed tomato plants exhibited an increase in the levels SA, kaempferol, and quercetin, upregulation of PAL5, BSMT, CHS, FLS, and downregulation of ICS gene. Somatic immune memory Primed tomato plants exhibited enhanced disease resistance to the hemi-biotroph Fusarium oxysporum. Król et al., 2015
β-aminobutyric acid (BABA) S. lycopersicum, P. glaucum BABA-primed pearl millet plants showed significant changes in protein abundance including the over-representation of proteins related to glucose metabolism Somatic immune memory Primed tomato and pearl millet plants exhibited increased disease resistance against powdery mildew and downy mildew, respectively. Worrall et al., 2012; Anup et al., 2015
Chemical priming Chitosan P. glaucum, C. sativus, B. vulgaris Priming of pearl millet seeds with chitosan increased levels of chitosanase, whereas chitosan-primed cucumber plants showed enhanced deposition of lignin, callose, and H2O2. Chitosan seed-primed sugar beet plants exhibited upregulation of PR3, PAL, and GST genes. Somatic immune memory Primed pearl millet plants exhibited increased disease resistance downy mildew, whereas primed cucumber and sugar beet plants exhibited enhanced disease resistance against powdery mildew and CLS disease, respectively. Manjunatha et al., 2008; Jogaiah et al., 2020; Kappel et al., 2022
2,6-dichloroisonicotinic acid (INA) Phaseolus vulgaris INA-primed common bean plants and its stress-free offsprings exhibited enrichment of H3K4me3 and H3K36me3, as well as low nucleosome occupancy at PvPR1 gene. Transgenerational immune memory Primed common bean plants and its stress-free offsprings exhibited reduced susceptibility to P. syringae pv. phaseolicola pathogen. Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021
Cholic acid-glycine conjugates (CAGCs) Oryza sativa Seed priming of rice plants with CAGCs induced expression of defense-related genes. Somatic immune memory Primed rice plants exhibited enhanced resistance against leaf blight disease. Pal et al., 2021
Nanomaterial priming Mycogenic selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs) S. lycopersicum SeNPs-primed tomato plants exhibited accumulations of lignin, callose, and elevated levels of LOX, PAL, GLU, and SOD. Somatic immune memory Primed tomato plants displayed enhanced resistance against the late blight. Joshi et al., 2021
Nanoemulsions formulated from membrane lipids of Trichoderma brevicompactum (UP-91) P. glaucum Priming of pearl millet with nanoemulsions induced deposition of lignin, enhanced expression of LOX, AOC, and α-DOX genes, and potentiated production of JA and MeJA. Somatic immune memory Primed pearl millet plants displayed enhanced resistance against the downy mildew disease. Nandini et al., 2019

Beneficial microbes such as plant-growth-promoting fungi (PGPFs) Trichoderma spp., plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs) Pseudomonas spp., Paenibacillus spp., and Bacillus spp. have been employed in seed primings on crops (summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1). Seed priming of chilli with PGPFs T. harzianum, T. asperellum, and PGFR Paenibacillus dendritiformis triggers physiological, transcriptional, and metabolic changes such as ROS burst and induction of defense-related enzymes and phenolic compounds, as well as increased disease resistance against anthracnose disease (Mitra et al., 2021; Yadav et al., 2021). Sugar beet primed with the PGPF T. atroviride exhibited upregulation of defense gene BvPR3 and induced systemic resistance against Cercospora leaf spot (CLS) disease (Kappel et al., 2022). In addition, seed priming of crop plants with elicitors derived from beneficial microbes also could trigger immune memory, as well as induced resistance, throughout their developmental stages. Seed priming of pearl millet with total crude protein (TCP) extracted from Trichoderma spp. enhanced levels of peroxidase and lipoxygenase, and induced pearl millet disease resistance against downy mildew (Nandini et al., 2017). Pearl millet primed with LPS isolated from Pseudomonas fluorescens exhibited physiological and transcriptional changes such as ROS burst, callose deposition, and upregulation of PR genes, as well as induced disease resistance against downy mildew disease (Lavanya et al., 2018).

Figure 1.

Figure 1

A schematic of seed priming and plant immune memory for crop disease resistance improvement. Priming of crop seeds with beneficial microbes and their derived elicitors, phytohormones and natural products, biological primimg could lead to the establishment of immune memory and induced crop disease resistance. Seed primimg with synthetic chemical inducers (chemical primimg), also could improve crop disease resistance. Physiological, transcriptional, metabolic and epigenetic changes are induced in defence priming to establish the immune memory in primed crop plants.

Phytohormones SA and JA and plant natural product BABA could effectively induce crop disease resistance when applied exogenously in seed priming (summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1). For instance, eggplant primed with SA exhibited upregulation of defense-related genes MPK1, GPX, and PRs, and showed increased disease resistance against Verticillium wilt (Mahesh et al., 2017). Priming of tomato with SA induced expression of APx, CAT, and GR, and enhanced bacterial spot disease resistance (Srinivasa et al., 2022). Notably, MeJA-primed tomato plants exhibited increased levels SA, kaempferol, and quercetin, upregulation of PAL5, BSMT, CHS, and FLS, as well as enhanced tomato disease resistance to the hemi-biotroph Fusarium oxysporum (Król et al., 2015). In addition, pearl millet primed with BABA exhibited significant changes in protein abundance and enhanced disease resistance against downy mildew (Anup et al., 2015). These studies paved a path for the exploitation of phytohormones and natural products in seed priming for crop protection.

Synthetic chemical inducers chitosan, INA, and cholic acid-glycine conjugates (CAGCs) have been successfully applied in the seed priming of crop plants for disease resistance improvement (see Table 1 and Figure 1). Priming of cucumber with chitosan induced deposition of lignin and callose, enhanced the accumulation of defense-responsive enzymes, and increased disease resistance against powdery mildew (Jogaiah et al., 2020). Chitosan-primed sugar beet plants exhibited upregulation of PR3, PAL, and GST genes, as well as enhanced resistance against CLS disease (Kappel et al., 2022). Rice primed with CAGCs induced expression of defense genes EDS1, ICS1, NPR1, MKK4, and PR1 genes, and enhanced resistance against rice bacterial leaf blight disease (Pal et al., 2021). Notably, INA-primed common bean plants and their stress-free offsprings exhibited epigenetic changes such as enrichment of H3K4me3 and H3K36me3, as well as low nucleosome occupancy at PvPR1 gene (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021). This study demonstrated that seed priming with INA induced the establishment of transgenerational immune memory in common bean (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021). Consistent with this, INA-primed common bean plants and their stress-free offsprings exhibited reduced susceptibility to the bacterial pathogen P. syringae pv. phaseolicola (Martínez-Aguilar et al., 2021). Recently, advanced chemical inducers-synthesis strategies such as computer-aided inducer design have been developed, which would certainly contribute to the advance of seed priming and its application in crop protection (Zhou and Wang, 2018).

With the advance in nanotechnology, several nanomaterials have been developed for crop protection (Do Espirito Santo Pereira et al., 2021). As summarized in Table 1 and Figure 1, nanomaterials could effectively trigger crop immune memory and induced disease resistance when applied exogenously in defense priming (Quiterio-Gutiérrez et al., 2019; Shelar et al., 2021). Seed priming of tomato with mycogenic selenium nanoparticles (SeNPs) induced accumulation of lignin and hydrogen peroxide, as well as elevated expression levels of LOX, PAL, GLU, and SOD genes (Table 1; Joshi et al., 2021). These SeNP-primed tomato plants displayed enhanced resistance against the late blight caused by Phytophthora infestans throughout their developmental stages, indicating that nanoparticles could be applied in the seed priming for crop protection (Joshi et al., 2021). Priming of pearl millet with nanoemulsions formulated from membrane lipids of Trichoderma brevicompactum (UP-91) effectively induced deposition of lignin, ROS, and callose, and increased pearl millet resistance against downy mildew disease (Table 1; Nandini et al., 2019). This study suggested that combined nanotechnology with biological priming might represent a promising seed priming method for crop protection (Table 1; Nandini et al., 2019).

To secure crop production under pathogen threats, natural and induced genetic variations have been employed for crop improvement via conventional or genomic breeding (Rodriguez-Moreno et al., 2017). Genetic engineering, genomic editing, and targeting induced local lesions in genomes (TILLING) of resistance or susceptibility genes represent promising approaches in crop breeding (Bruce, 2012; Acevedo-Garcia et al., 2017; Gao, 2021; Koseoglou et al., 2022). At the same time, integrated management systems based on host-pathogen-environment interaction have been established to control some pathogens and pests (Jindo et al., 2021). Compared with these current approaches, seed priming is cost and time effective, and applicable to a wide range of crop species, including those recalcitrant crops with low rates of transformation and regeneration. Furthermore, seed priming could enhance crop resistance to multiple types of pathogens. For example, BABA enhances disease resistance against powdery mildew and downy mildew in several crop species (Worrall et al., 2012; Anup et al., 2015). As discussed in the epigenetic section in detail, defense priming induced epigenetic changes such as alteration in DNA methylation, which could lead to mobilization of transposable elements and formation of heritable genetic variations (Luna et al., 2012; Meller et al., 2018; López Sánchez et al., 2021; Catoni et al., 2022). These genetic variations could be employed for breeding purposes, which might provide a direction to integrate priming strategy into breeding programs in future research.

Although seed priming has great potential for use in crop protection, caution must be exercised in the application of priming materials. The safety of priming microbes, chemicals, and nanomaterials, as well as their impact on ecosystems and fates in environments, needs to be extensively evaluated before large-scale application. Some priming chemicals such as BABA, chitosan, and BTH are commercially available, but industrial production of other priming materials such as PGPFs, RGRRs, and nanomaterials need to be established or optimized to meet the demand in agronomical practices. Since pre-treatment with some priming materials like BABA and BTH usually induces plant defense response and leads to growth penalty, it is crucial to establish proper application conditions for each priming agent (Buswell et al., 2018). In addition, priming concentration and duration also need to be optimized for each crop variety.

Concluding remarks and perspectives

In this review, we summarized molecular bases of plant defense priming and immune memory associated, and discussed recent advances and future directions in exploiting seed priming for crop protection. As shown in Figure 1, seed priming of crop plants with beneficial microbes, phytohormones, and natural products (biological priming), synthetic chemical inducers (chemical priming), nanoemulsions, and nanoparticles (nanomaterials priming) could effectively improve crop resistance against pathogen infections. Physiological, transcriptional, metabolic, and epigenetic changes are induced by defense priming to constitute the immune memory that is either stably maintained in developmental stages or transmitted over generations in primed crop plants. Although the past decade has seen great progress in exploiting seed priming for crop protection, we still have a long way to go towards fully understanding the mechanism of plant immune memory as well as its application in sustainable agriculture. For instance, most of our knowledge about the molecular mechanism of plant defense priming comes from the study of model plants like Arabidopsis, establishment and maintenance mechanisms of plant defense priming in crop plants is poorly understood. Furthermore, seed priming has been widely reported on crop protection against pathogenic microbes, but its effectiveness against herbivores is less documented. In addition, degradation of thermomemory-associated heat shock proteins (HSPs) by autophagy contributes to erasing thermomemory in Arabidopsis, but the resetting mechanism of plant immune memory remains to be disclosed (Hilker and Schmülling, 2019; Sedaghatmehr et al., 2019). With the advance in the knowledge of plant immune memory and the development of priming methodology, exploiting seed priming would provide new avenues for better crop protection in future agriculture.

Author contributions

CC, ZY, and PZ wrote this manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31701412), the Natural Science Foundation of Shandong Province (ZR2017BC109), Qingdao Science and Technology Bureau Fund (17-1-1-50-jch), and Qingdao University Fund (DC1900005385).

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Nicolás M. Cecchini for the kind invitation to write this review. We are also grateful to two reviewers for their very helpful comments and suggestions on this manuscript.

References

  1. Abdelrahman M., Abdel-Motaal F., El-Sayed M., Jogaiah S., Shigyo M., Ito S. I., et al. (2016). Dissection of Trichoderma longibrachiatum-induced defense in onion (Allium cepa L.) against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cepa by target metabolite profiling. Plant Sci. 246, 128–138. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2016.02.008, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Abdul Malik N. A., Kumar I. S., Nadarajah K. (2020). Elicitor and receptor molecules: orchestrators of plant defense and immunity. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 963. doi: 10.3390/ijms21030963 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Acevedo-Garcia J., Spencer D., Thieron H., Reinstädler A., Hammond-Kosack K., Phillips A. L., et al. (2017). Mlo-based powdery mildew resistance in hexaploid bread wheat generated by a non-transgenic TILLING approach. Plant Biotechnol. J. 15, 367–378. doi: 10.1111/pbi.12631, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Annacondia M. L., Markovic D., Reig-Valiente J. L., Scaltsoyiannes V., Pieterse C., Ninkovic V., et al. (2021). Aphid feeding induces the relaxation of epigenetic control and the associated regulation of the defense response in Arabidopsis. New Phytol. 230, 1185–1200. doi: 10.1111/nph.17226, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Anup C. P., Melvin P., Shilpa N., Gandhi M. N., Jadhav M., Ali H., et al. (2015). Proteomic analysis of elicitation of downy mildew disease resistance in pearl millet by seed priming with β-aminobutyric acid and Pseudomonas fluorescens. J. Proteome 120, 58–74. doi: 10.1016/j.jprot.2015.02.013, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Atighi M. R., Verstraeten B., De Meyer T., Kyndt T. (2020). Genome-wide DNA hypomethylation shapes nematode pattern-triggered immunity in plants. New Phytol. 227, 545–558. doi: 10.1111/nph.16532, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Baccelli I., Mauch-Mani B. (2016). Beta-aminobutyric acid priming of plant defense: the role of ABA and other hormones. Plant Mol. Biol. 91, 703–711. doi: 10.1007/s11103-015-0406-y, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Balmer A., Pastor V., Gamir J., Flors V., Mauch-Mani B. (2015). The ‘prime-ome’: towards a holistic approach to priming. Trends Plant Sci. 20, 443–452. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2015.04.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Beckers G. J., Jaskiewicz M., Liu Y., Underwood W. R., He S. Y., Zhang S., et al. (2009). Mitogen-activated protein kinases 3 and 6 are required for full priming of stress responses in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Cell 21, 944–953. doi: 10.1105/tpc.108.062158, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Black J. C., Van Rechem C., Whetstine J. R. (2012). Histone lysine methylation dynamics: establishment, regulation, and biological impact. Mol. Cell 48, 491–507. doi: 10.1016/j.molcel.2012.11.006, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Brosset A., Blande J. D. (2022). Volatile-mediated plant-plant interactions: volatile organic compounds as modulators of receiver plant defence, growth, and reproduction. J. Exp. Bot. 73, 511–528. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab487, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Bruce T. J. A. (2012). GM as a route for delivery of sustainable crop protection. J. Exp. Bot. 63, 537–541. doi: 10.1093/jxb/err281, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Brzeski J., Jerzmanowski A. (2003). Deficient in DNA methylation 1 (DDM1) defines a novel family of chromatin-remodeling factors. J. Biol. Chem. 278, 823–828. doi: 10.1074/jbc.M209260200, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Buswell W., Schwarzenbacher R. E., Luna E., Sellwood M., Chen B., Flors V., et al. (2018). Chemical priming of immunity without costs to plant growth. New Phytol. 218, 1205–1216. doi: 10.1111/nph.15062, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Cambiagno D. A., Nota F., Zavallo D., Rius S., Casati P., Asurmendi S., et al. (2018). Immune receptor genes and pericentromeric transposons as targets of common epigenetic regulatory elements. Plant J. 96, 1178–1190. doi: 10.1111/tpj.14098, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cao X. Q., Jiang Z. H., Yi Y. Y., Yang Y., Ke L. P., Pei Z. M., et al. (2017). Biotic and abiotic stresses activate different Ca2+ permeable channels in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci. 8:83. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00083, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Catoni M., Alvarez-Venegas R., Worrall D., Holroyd G., Barraza A., Luna E., et al. (2022). Long-lasting defence priming by β-aminobutyric acid in tomato is marked by genome-wide changes in DNA methylation. Front. Plant Sci. 13:836326. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.836326, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Chan S. W.-L., Henderson I. R., Jacobsen S. E. (2005). Gardening the genome: DNA methylation in Arabidopsis thaliana. Nat. Rev. Genet. 6, 351–360. doi: 10.1038/nrg1601, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Do Espirito Santo Pereira A., Caixeta Oliveira H., Fernandes Fraceto L., Santaella C. (2021). Nanotechnology potential in seed priming for sustainable agriculture. Nanomaterials (Basel) 11, 267. doi: 10.3390/nano11020267, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Elhamamsy A. R. (2016). DNA methylation dynamics in plants and mammals: overview of regulation and dysregulation. Cell Biochem. Funct. 34, 289–298. doi: 10.1002/cbf.3183, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. Erdmann R. M., Picard C. L. (2020). RNA-directed DNA methylation. PLoS Genet. 16:e1009034. doi: 10.1371/journal.pgen.1009034, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Frost C. J., Mescher M. C., Carlson J. E., De Moraes C. M. (2008). Plant defense priming against herbivores: getting ready for a different battle. Plant Physiol. 146, 818–824. doi: 10.1104/pp.107.113027, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gao C. (2021). Genome engineering for crop improvement and future agriculture. Cell 184, 1621–1635. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2021.01.005, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gauthier A., Trouvelot S., Kelloniemi J., Frettinger P., Wendehenne D., Daire X., et al. (2014). The sulfated laminarin triggers a stress transcriptome before priming the SA- and ROS-dependent defenses during grapevine’s induced resistance against Plasmopara viticola. PLoS One 9:e88145. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0088145, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Hake K., Romeis T. (2019). Protein kinase-mediated signalling in priming: immune signal initiation, propagation, and establishment of long-term pathogen resistance in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 904–917. doi: 10.1111/pce.13429, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Han S. K., Wu M. F., Cui S., Wagner D. (2015). Roles and activities of chromatin remodeling ATPases in plants. Plant J. 83, 62–77. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12877, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hilker M., Schmülling T. (2019). Stress priming, memory, and signalling in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 753–761. doi: 10.1111/pce.13526, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Huang C. Y., Jin H. (2022). Coordinated epigenetic regulation in plants: a potent managerial tool to conquer biotic stress. Front. Plant Sci. 12:795274. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.795274, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Hussain S., Khan F., Hussain H. A., Nie L. (2016). Physiological and biochemical mechanisms of seed priming-induced chilling tolerance in rice cultivars. Front. Plant Sci. 7:116. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00116, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Imhof A., Wolffe A. P. (1998). Transcription: gene control by targeted histone acetylation. Curr. Biol. 8, R422–R424. doi: 10.1016/S0960-9822(98)70268-4, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Jindo K., Evenhuis A., Kempenaar C., Pombo Sudré C., Zhan X., Goitom Teklu M., et al. (2021). Review: holistic pest management against early blight disease towards sustainable agriculture. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 3871–3880. doi: 10.1002/ps.6320, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Jogaiah S., Abdelrahman M., Tran L. S., Shin-ichi I. (2013). Characterization of rhizosphere fungi that mediate resistance in tomato against bacterial wilt disease. J. Exp. Bot. 64, 3829–3842. doi: 10.1093/jxb/ert212, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Jogaiah S., Satapute P., De Britto S., Konappa N., Udayashankar A. C. (2020). Exogenous priming of chitosan induces upregulation of phytohormones and resistance against cucumber powdery mildew disease is correlated with localized biosynthesis of defense enzymes. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 162, 1825–1838. doi: 10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2020.08.124, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Johnson R., Puthur J. T. (2021). Seed priming as a cost effective technique for developing plants with cross tolerance to salinity stress. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 162, 247–257. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2021.02.034, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Joshi S. M., De Britto S., Jogaiah S. (2021). Myco-engineered selenium nanoparticles elicit resistance against tomato late blight disease by regulating differential expression of cellular, biochemical and defense responsive genes. J. Biotechnol. 325, 196–206. doi: 10.1016/j.jbiotec.2020.10.023, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Kappel L., Kosa N., Gruber S. (2022). The multilateral efficacy of chitosan and Trichoderma on sugar beet. J. Fungi (Basel). 8, 137. doi: 10.3390/jof8020137, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Kong W., Li B., Wang Q., Wang B., Duan X., Ding L., et al. (2018). Analysis of the DNA methylation patterns and transcriptional regulation of the NB-LRR-encoding gene family in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Mol. Biol. 96, 563–575. doi: 10.1007/s11103-018-0715-z, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Kong L., Liu Y., Wang X., Chang C. (2020). Insight into the role of epigenetic processes in abiotic and biotic stress response in wheat and barley. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 1480. doi: 10.3390/ijms21041480, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Koseoglou E., van der Wolf J. M., Visser R., Bai Y. (2022). Susceptibility reversed: modified plant susceptibility genes for resistance to bacteria. Trends Plant Sci. 27, 69–79. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.07.018, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Król P., Igielski R., Pollmann S., Kępczyńska E. (2015). Priming of seeds with methyl jasmonate induced resistance to hemi-biotroph Fusarium oxysporum f.sp. lycopersici in tomato via 12-oxo-phytodienoic acid, salicylic acid, and flavonol accumulation. J. Plant Physiol. 179, 122–132. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2015.01.018, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Lämke J., Bäurle I. (2017). Epigenetic and chromatin-based mechanisms in environmental stress adaptation and stress memory in plants. Genome Biol. 18, 124. doi: 10.1186/s13059-017-1263-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Lavanya S. N., Udayashankar A. C., Raj S. N., Mohan C. D., Gupta V. K., Tarasatyavati C., et al. (2018). Lipopolysaccharide-induced priming enhances NO-mediated activation of defense responses in pearl millet challenged with Sclerospora graminicola. 3. Biotech 8, 475. doi: 10.1007/s13205-018-1501-y, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Law J. A., Jacobsen S. E. (2010). Establishing, maintaining and modifying DNA methylation patterns in plants and animals. Nat. Rev. Genet. 11, 204–220. doi: 10.1038/nrg2719, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Li X., Jiang Y., Ji Z., Liu Y., Zhang Q. (2015). BRHIS1 suppresses rice innate immunity through binding to monoubiquitinated H2A and H2B variants. EMBO Rep. 16, 1192–1202. doi: 10.15252/embr.201440000, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Li Y., Jiao M., Li Y., Zhong Y., Li X., Chen Z., et al. (2021b). Penicillium chrysogenum polypeptide extract protects tobacco plants from tobacco mosaic virus infection through modulation of ABA biosynthesis and callose priming. J. Exp. Bot. 72, 3526–3539. doi: 10.1093/jxb/erab102 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Li Y., Qiu L., Liu X., Zhang Q., Zhuansun X., Fahima T., et al. (2020). Glycerol-induced powdery mildew resistance in wheat by regulating plant fatty acid metabolism, plant hormones cross-talk, and Pathogenesis-related genes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 673. doi: 10.3390/ijms21020673, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Li Y., Tessaro M. J., Li X., Zhang Y. (2010). Regulation of the expression of plant resistance gene SNC1 by a protein with a conserved BAT2 domain. Plant Physiol. 153, 1425–1434. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.156240, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Li C., Wang K., Lei C., Cao S., Huang Y., Ji N., et al. (2021a). Alterations in sucrose and phenylpropanoid metabolism affected by BABA-primed defense in postharvest grapes and the associated transcriptional mechanism. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 34, 1250–1266. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-06-21-0142-R [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Liu H., Able A. J., Able J. A. (2022). Priming crops for the future: rewiring stress memory. Trends Plant Sci. 27, 699–716 doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2021.11.015 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Liu J., Chang C. (2021). Concerto on chromatin: interplays of different epigenetic mechanisms in plant development and environmental adaptation. Plants (Basel) 10, 2766. doi: 10.3390/plants10122766, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. López Sánchez A., Hernández Luelmo S., Izquierdo Y., López B., Cascón T., Castresana C. (2021). Mitochondrial stress induces plant resistance through chromatin changes. Front. Plant Sci. 12:704964. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.704964, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Luna E., Bruce T. J., Roberts M. R., Flors V., Ton J. (2012). Next-generation systemic acquired resistance. Plant Physiol. 158, 844–853. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.187468, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Mahesh H. M., Murali M., Chandra A., Melvin P., Sharada M. S. (2017). Salicylic acid seed priming instigates defense mechanism by inducing PR-proteins in Solanum melongena L. upon infection with Verticillium dahlia Kleb. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 117, 12–23. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.05.012, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Manjunatha G., Roopa K. S., Prashanth G. N., Shetty H. S. (2008). Chitosan enhances disease resistance in pearl millet against downy mildew caused by Sclerospora graminicola and defence-related enzyme activation. Pest Manag. Sci. 64, 1250–1257. doi: 10.1002/ps.1626, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Marthandan V., Geetha R., Kumutha K., Renganathan V. G., Karthikeyan A., Ramalingam J. (2020). Seed priming: a feasible strategy to enhance drought tolerance in crop plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 21, 8258. doi: 10.3390/ijms21218258, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  56. Martínez-Aguilar K., Hernández-Chávez J. L., Alvarez-Venegas R. (2021). Priming of seeds with INA and its transgenerational effect in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants. Plant Sci. 305:110834. doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2021.110834, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Martínez-Aguilar K., Ramírez-Carrasco G., Hernández-Chávez J. L., Barraza A., Alvarez-Venegas R. (2016). Use of BABA and INA as activators of a primed state in the common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Front. Plant Sci. 7:653. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.00653, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Mauch-Mani B., Baccelli I., Luna E., Flors V. (2017). Defense priming: an adaptive part of induced resistance. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 68, 485–512. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-042916-041132, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Meller B., Kuźnicki D., Arasimowicz-Jelonek M., Deckert J., Floryszak-Wieczorek J. (2018). BABA-primed histone modifications in potato for intergenerational resistance to Phytophthora infestans. Front. Plant Sci. 9:1228. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01228 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Mishra A., Singh S. P., Mahfooz S., Singh S. P., Bhattacharya A., Mishra N., et al. (2018). Endophyte-mediated modulation of defense-related genes and systemic resistance in Withaniasomnifera (L.) dunal under Alternaria alternata stress. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 84, e02845–e02817. doi: 10.1128/AEM.02845-17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Mitra D., Mondal R., Khoshru B., Shadangi S., Das Mohapatra P. K., Panneerselvam P. (2021). Rhizobacteria mediated seed bio-priming triggers the resistance and plant growth for sustainable crop production. Curr. Res. Microb. Sci. 2:100071. doi: 10.1016/j.crmicr.2021.100071, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  62. Mozgová I., Wildhaber T., Liu Q., Abou-Mansour E., L'Haridon F., Métraux J. P., et al. (2015). Chromatin assembly factor CAF-1 represses priming of plant defence response genes. Nat. Plants 1:15127. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2015.127 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. Muñoz-Viana R., Wildhaber T., Trejo-Arellano M. S., Mozgová I., Hennig L. (2017). Arabidopsis chromatin assembly factor 1 is required for occupancy and position of a subset of nucleosomes. Plant J. 92, 363–374. doi: 10.1111/tpj.13658, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Nandini B., Hariprasad P., Shankara H. N., Prakash H. S., Geetha N. (2017). Total crude protein extract of Trichoderma spp. induces systemic resistance in pearl millet against the downy mildew pathogen. 3. Biotech 7, 183. doi: 10.1007/s13205-017-0816-4, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Nandini B., Puttaswamy H., Prakash H. S., Adhikari S., Jogaiah S., Nagaraja G. (2019). Elicitation of novel trichogenic-lipid nanoemulsion signaling resistance against pearl millet downy mildew disease. Biomol. Ther. 10, 25. doi: 10.3390/biom10010025 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Ngou B., Ahn H. K., Ding P., Jones J. (2021). Mutual potentiation of plant immunity by cell-surface and intracellular receptors. Nature 592, 110–115. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03315-7, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Noh S. W., Seo R. R., Park H. J., Jung H. W. (2021). Two Arabidopsis homologs of human lysine-specific demethylase function in epigenetic regulation of plant defense responses. Front. Plant Sci. 12:688003. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.688003, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Pal G., Mehta D., Singh S., Magal K., Gupta S., Jha G., et al. (2021). Foliar application or seed priming of cholic acid-glycine conjugates can mitigate/prevent the rice bacterial leaf blight disease via activating plant defense genes. Front. Plant Sci. 12:746912. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.746912, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Paparella S., Araújo S. S., Rossi G., Wijayasinghe M., Carbonera D., Balestrazzi A. (2015). Seed priming: state of the art and new perspectives. Plant Cell Rep. 34, 1281–1293. doi: 10.1007/s00299-015-1784-y, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Peng Y., Li S., Landsman D., Panchenko A. R. (2021). Histone tails as signaling antennas of chromatin. Curr. Opin. Struct. Biol. 67, 153–160. doi: 10.1016/j.sbi.2020.10.018, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Quiterio-Gutiérrez T., Ortega-Ortiz H., Cadenas-Pliego G., Hernández-Fuentes A. D., Sandoval-Rangel A., Benavides-Mendoza A., et al. (2019). The application of selenium and copper nanoparticles modifies the biochemical responses of tomato plants under stress by Alternaria solani. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 20, 1950. doi: 10.3390/ijms20081950, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Ramírez-Carrasco G., Martínez-Aguilar K., Alvarez-Venegas R. (2017). Transgenerational defense priming for crop protection against plant pathogens: a hypothesis. Front. Plant Sci. 8:696. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.00696 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Ramirez-Prado J. S., Abulfaraj A. A., Rayapuram N., Benhamed M., Hirt H. (2018). Plant immunity: from signaling to epigenetic control of defense. Trends Plant Sci. 23, 833–844. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2018.06.004, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  74. Reimer-Michalski E. M., Conrath U. (2016). Innate immune memory in plants. Semin. Immunol. 28, 319–327. doi: 10.1016/j.smim.2016.05.006, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  75. Rodriguez-Moreno L., Song Y., Thomma B. P. (2017). Transfer and engineering of immune receptors to improve recognition capacities in crops. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 38, 42–49. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2017.04.010, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  76. Saur I., Panstruga R., Schulze-Lefert P. (2021). NOD-like receptor-mediated plant immunity: from structure to cell death. Nat. Rev. Immunol. 21, 305–318. doi: 10.1038/s41577-020-00473-z, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  77. Sedaghatmehr M., Thirumalaikumar V. P., Kamranfar I., Marmagne A., Masclaux-Daubresse C., Balazadeh S. (2019). A regulatory role of autophagy for resetting the memory of heat stress in plants. Plant Cell Environ. 42, 1054–1064. doi: 10.1111/pce.13426, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  78. Shelar A., Singh A. V., Maharjan R. S., Laux P., Luch A., Gemmati D., et al. (2021). Sustainable agriculture through multidisciplinary seed nanopriming: prospects of opportunities and challenges. Cell 10, 2428. doi: 10.3390/cells10092428, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  79. Singh R. R., Pajar J. A., Audenaert K., Kyndt T. (2021). Induced resistance by ascorbate oxidation involves potentiating of the phenylpropanoid pathway and improved rice tolerance to parasitic nematodes. Front. Plant Sci. 12:713870. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.713870, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  80. Song G. C., Choi H. K., Kim Y. S., Choi J. S., Ryu C. M. (2017). Seed defense biopriming with bacterial cyclodipeptides triggers immunity in cucumber and pepper. Sci. Rep. 7, 14209. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14155-9 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  81. Song Z. T., Liu J. X., Han J. J. (2021). Chromatin remodeling factors regulate environmental stress responses in plants. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 63, 438–450. doi: 10.1111/jipb.13064, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  82. Srinivasa C., Umesha S., Pradeep S., Ramu R., Gopinath S. M., Ansari M. A., et al. (2022). Salicylic acid-mediated enhancement of resistance in tomato plants against Xanthomonas perforans. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 29, 2253–2261. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2021.11.067, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  83. Tang K., Lang Z., Zhang H., Zhu J. K. (2016). The DNA demethylase ROS1 targets genomic regions with distinct chromatin modifications. Nat. Plants 2, 16169. doi: 10.1038/nplants.2016.169 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  84. Tateda C., Zhang Z., Shrestha J., Jelenska J., Chinchilla D., Greenberg J. T. (2014). Salicylic acid regulates Arabidopsis microbial pattern receptor kinase levels and signaling. Plant Cell 26, 4171–4187. doi: 10.1105/tpc.114.131938, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  85. Tessarz P., Kouzarides T. (2014). Histone core modifications regulating nucleosome structure and dynamics. Nat. Rev. Mol. Cell Biol. 15, 703–708. doi: 10.1038/nrm3890, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  86. van Hulten M., Pelser M., van Loon L. C., Pieterse C. M., Ton J. (2006). Costs and benefits of priming for defense in Arabidopsis. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 103, 5602–5607. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0510213103, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  87. War A. R., Sharma H. C., Paulraj M. G., War M. Y., Ignacimuthu S. (2011). Herbivore induced plant volatiles: their role in plant defense for pest management. Plant Signal. Behav. 6, 1973–1978. doi: 10.4161/psb.6.12.18053 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  88. Worrall D., Holroyd G. H., Moore J. P., Glowacz M., Croft P., Taylor J. E., et al. (2012). Treating seeds with activators of plant defence generates long-lasting priming of resistance to pests and pathogens. New Phytol. 193, 770–778. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2011.03987.x, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  89. Yaari R., Katz A., Domb K., Harris K. D., Zemach A., Ohad N. (2019). RdDM-independent de novo and heterochromatin DNA methylation by plant CMT and DNMT3 orthologs. Nat. Commun. 10, 1613. doi: 10.1038/s41467-019-09496-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  90. Yadav M., Dubey M. K., Upadhyay R. S. (2021). Systemic resistance in chilli pepper against anthracnose (caused by Colletotrichum truncatum) induced by Trichoderma harzianum, Trichoderma asperellum and Paenibacillus dendritiformis. J. Fungi (Basel) 7, 307. doi: 10.3390/jof7040307, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  91. Yassin M., Ton J., Rolfe S. A., Valentine T. A., Cromey M., Holden N., et al. (2021). The rise, fall and resurrection of chemical-induced resistance agents. Pest Manag. Sci. 77, 3900–3909. doi: 10.1002/ps.6370, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  92. Yu X., Feng B., He P., Shan L. (2017). From chaos to harmony: responses and signaling upon microbial pattern recognition. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 55, 109–137. doi: 10.1146/annurev-phyto-080516-035649, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  93. Yu Y., Gui Y., Li Z., Jiang C., Guo J., Niu D. (2022). Induced systemic resistance for improving plant immunity by beneficial microbes. Plants (Basel) 11, 386. doi: 10.3390/plants11030386, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  94. Yuan M., Jiang Z., Bi G., Nomura K., Liu M., Wang Y., et al. (2021a). Pattern-recognition receptors are required for NLR-mediated plant immunity. Nature 592, 105–109. doi: 10.1038/s41586-021-03316-6 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  95. Yuan M., Ngou B., Ding P., Xin X. F. (2021b). PTI-ETI crosstalk: an integrative view of plant immunity. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 62:102030. doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102030 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  96. Zhang X., Yazaki J., Sundaresan A., Cokus S., Chan S. W., Chen H., et al. (2006). Genome-wide high-resolution mapping and functional analysis of DNA methylation in Arabidopsis. Cell 126, 1189–1201. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2006.08.003, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  97. Zhi P., Chang C. (2021). Exploiting epigenetic variations for crop disease resistance improvement. Front. Plant Sci. 12:692328. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.692328, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  98. Zhou M., Wang W. (2018). Recent advances in synthetic chemical inducers of plant immunity. Front. Plant Sci. 9:1613. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.01613 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  99. Zhou J. M., Zhang Y. (2020). Plant immunity: danger perception and signaling. Cell 181, 978–989. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.028, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  100. Zhou W., Zhu Y., Dong A., Shen W. H. (2015). Histone H2A/H2B chaperones: from molecules to chromatin-based functions in plant growth and development. Plant J. 83, 78–95. doi: 10.1111/tpj.12830, PMID: [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  101. Zhu J. K. (2009). Active DNA demethylation mediated by DNA glycosylases. Annu. Rev. Genet. 43, 143–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev-genet-102108-134205, PMID: [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Frontiers in Plant Science are provided here courtesy of Frontiers Media SA

RESOURCES