Advertisement

Streptomyces: implications and interactions in plant growth promotion

  • Oluwaseyi Samuel Olanrewaju
  • Olubukola Oluranti BabalolaEmail author
Open Access
Mini-Review

Abstract

With the impending increase of the world population by 2050, more activities have been directed toward the improvement of crop yield and a safe environment. The need for chemical-free agricultural practices is becoming eminent due to the effects of these chemicals on the environment and human health. Actinomycetes constitute a significant percentage of the soil microbial community. The Streptomyces genus, which is the most abundant and arguably the most important actinomycetes, is a good source of bioactive compounds, antibiotics, and extracellular enzymes. These genera have shown over time great potential in improving the future of agriculture. This review highlights and buttresses the agricultural importance of Streptomyces through its biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activities. These activities are highlighted and discussed in this review. Some biocontrol products from this genus are already being marketed while work is still ongoing on this productive genus. Compared to more focus on its biocontrol ability, less work has been done on it as a biofertilizer until recently. This genus is as efficient as a biofertilizer as it is as a biocontrol.

Keywords

Actinomycetes Biocontrol Biofertilizer Streptomyces Sustainable agriculture VOCs 

Introduction

Actinomycetes are Gram-positive bacteria characterized by a genome with high G + C ratio. They are mostly aerobic, but some of them can grow anaerobically. Several actinomycetes form branching filaments and possess mycelial growth while some species produce external spores. Out of all rhizosphere microbes, actinomycetes are regarded to be special in plant growth promotion because they exhibit many useful traits (El-Tarabily and Alkhajeh 2016; Monteiro et al. 2017). Their filaments and ability to sporulate help them cleave strongly to the rhizospheric soil particles forming a strong bond with the plants.

Actinomycetes are a numerous and widely distributed group of soil microbes, constituting to about 10 to 50% of the soil microflora community. Tyc et al. (2017), Adegboye and Babalola (2012), and other researchers have reported them to be important producers of secondary metabolites. The metabolites produced are diversified in their biological activities and functions such as antifungal, insecticidal, antibacterial, and antihelminthic activities. Actinomycetes, like other plant growth-promoting microbes, also produce phytohormone (Jog et al. 2016), and solubilize phosphate (El-Tarabily et al. 2008; El-Tarabily and Sivasithamparam 2006). This goes a long way to show the interest in the use of actinomycetes that can solubilize phosphate in phosphate-deficient soils. As reported by Mercado-Blanco and Bakker (2007), they interact with plants as free-living non-symbiotic bacteria. Despite the fact that they are largely spread in nature and have been strongly studied largely due to their production of numerous antibacterial and antifungal compounds, only a few works have established their importance, for example, wheat (Toumatia et al. 2016) and broccoli (Ruzzi and Aroca 2015). Due to their abundance, they have been isolated from tissues of various plants including wheat, rice, maize, soybean, and pepper (Adegboye and Babalola 2012; El-Tarabily and Alkhajeh 2016; Goudjal et al. 2014; Jog et al. 2016).

Most studied actinomycetes plant growth-promoting species possess antibacterial or antifungal activity which was imminent during their screening as biocontrol agents (Adegboye and Babalola 2012; Jog et al. 2016). To buttress this, many products such as Mycostop (Streptomyces griseoviridis K61), Actinovate (Streptomyces lydicus), and Nogall (Agrobacterium radiobacter Strain K1026) have been produced. Actinomycetes’ ability to colonize plant roots, fight against pathogens, synthesize extracellular proteins, produce antibiotics, and degrade phytotoxins makes them potent plant growth-promoting agents.

Properties and classifications of actinomycetes

They include microbes delineating an expanse range of morphologies, from hyphal forms to coccoid including those exhibiting highly variable physiological and metabolic traits. Actinomycetes members have evolved lifestyles differing to that of pathogens as demonstrated by Corynebacterium, Mycobacterium, Nocardia, Tropheryma, and Propionibacterium. They are soil inhabitants (Streptomyces) and gastrointestinal commensals (Bifidobacterium) as well as plant commensals (Leifsonia) (Ventura et al. 2007).

These bacteria resemble fungi in their morphology forming branching hyphae, asexual spores, and mycelium. This means that they have characteristics that are common to both fungi and bacteria; they are actually at the transition between bacteria and fungi. They are abundant and widely distributed in the soil leading to the claim that the characteristic smell of soil is actually due to the actinomycetes present. Some form mutualistic relationships with plants promoting their growth and protecting them from pathogens. In addition, they also form associations with green algae. However, not all actinomycetes are beneficial microbes, some are plant pathogens causing diseases such as potato scab, wilt, and gall, as well as causing diseases in humans and animals. They are classified into different genera based on their physiology and morphology. Based on this, some of the known actinomycetes are Actinomyces, Nocardia, Streptomyces, Thermoactinomyces, Waksmania, Thermopolyspora, Micromonospora, Thermomonospora, Actinoplanes, and Streptosporangium (Babalola et al. 2009). Among the actinomycetes, the Streptomyces genus happens to be the most regarded and well known due to its numerous identified importance. Its importance has been established in health, agriculture, and other important sectors. In this review, emphasis will be on this genus in relation to its plant growth promotion abilities as a biocontrol agent and biofertilizer. We will also consider the strategies common to their actions as plant growth promoters.

Overview of the Streptomyces genus

Streptomyces are important groups of soil bacteria from the actinomycetes family. Alongside Micromonospora, they are the most commonly described actinomycetes making up 1–20% of the culturable soil microbes. The colony growth of Streptomyces becomes visible when a spore germinates and produces long filaments which have multiple nuclei (van Dissel et al. 2014). The filaments elongate by apical growth and branch repeatedly producing a substrate mycelium that develops both on the culture medium and into it. The hyphae, which are formed by the mycelium, penetrate the medium in the presence of extracellular hydrolytic enzymes solubilizing organic molecules present. The filaments allow for efficient use of nutrients in the rhizosphere and it also enables the Streptomyces to colonize substrates better than unicellular microorganisms. Cell interactions are important in governing multicellular development and cellular differentiation in the Streptomyces colony (Miguélez et al. 2010). At the latter stage when the colony is getting old and the nutrients are exhausted, specialized branches evolve from the surface of the colony which results in the aerial mycelium (reproductive) that grows vertically into the air (Hu et al. 2012). Advances in sequencing technology have revealed significant findings which have helped in understanding the mechanisms involved at different transition stages of Streptomyces life cycle although the focus has mainly been on single-species cultures. On the other hand, same growth level cannot be recorded in the laboratory for any individual soil microbe because the laboratory environment may not capture the full potential of these microbes due to the difference in environmental conditions and the satiated level of microbes in the soil.

An extremely important and notable characteristic of Streptomyces is the ability to carry out a complex life cycle that can phylogenetically be considered as one of the probably several pioneer attempts at multicellular transformations and evolvement (Jones and Elliot 2017). They act in the catabolism of complex molecules and substances like lignocellulose, xylan, cellulose, and lignin, which are important in soil organic matter catabolism.

Streptomyces is one of the major sources of bioactives known and they are majorly studied for this reason (Tom et al. 2016). Some of the bioactives include secondary metabolite production, in the form of antibiotics and extracellular enzymes not forgetting antitumor and agroactive compounds which are important in the decomposition of cellulose and chitin (Adegboye and Babalola 2012; Tyc et al. 2017).

Approximately two thirds of natural antibiotics have been isolated from actinomycetes, and about 75% of them are from the Streptomyces genus (Franco-Correa et al. 2010). It is also reported by Berdy (2005) that Streptomyces produce about 7600 bioactive compounds. This has made Streptomyces become the major antibiotic producer used for drug discovery and production in the pharmaceutical industries (Kumari et al. 2017; Shekh and Naim 2017). Most Streptomyces produce some minute amount of α-butyrolactones, which is analogous to homoserine lactones, and have been deduced to play an important role as signals and markers for the setting-in of morphological and physiological differentiation (Safari et al. 2014). α-Butyrolactone, which is present in most Streptomyces, was the first Streptomyces sporulation factor discovered. It was first characterized as an activator of streptomycin production and spore formation in Streptomyces griseus (Miguélez et al. 2010).

Plant growth-promoting Streptomyces (PGPS)

Most Streptomyces are efficient rhizosphere and rhizoplane colonizers. They can also be endophytes colonizing inner tissues of host plants (Sousa and Olivares 2016). These attributes may be due to features such as quorum sensing controlled gene expression, multiplication rate, antibiotics, siderophore, cellulases, phytohormones, amino acid synthesis, chitinase, lipase, and β-1,3-glucanase production. Exudate attraction of Streptomyces to the rhizosphere is accomplished by the chemotaxis movement of these microbes.

In the agricultural sector, the emergence of PGPS either as biofertilizer or biocontrol has led to new discoveries into other ways these microbes can be useful. Streptomyces are not left out in this discovery, although many studies have focused on the biocontrol activities of these genera due to its high production of bioactive compounds which are used as defense mechanisms.

PGPS as a biocontrol agent

The global attempts to discovering natural products as biocontrol agents for plant protection have notably been on the rise and actinomycetes, Streptomyces being the most proactive, appear to be a readily available natural choice in finding new ways to combat plant pathogens.

Their abilities to control plant pathogens stem from the following traits:
  • Synthesis of plant growth regulators (Goudjal et al. 2013)

  • Siderophore production (Vijayabharathi et al. 2015)

  • Antibiotics production (Couillerot et al. 2013)

  • Volatile compound secretion (Jones and Elliot 2017) and

  • Competition for nutrients

Its main biocontrol ability is attributed to its strong production of antibiotics, volatile compounds, and other metabolites which help in its role as antipathogens, e.g., siderophores from S. coelicolor (Som et al. 2017), chitinase from S. violaceusniger YH27A strain (Gherbawy et al. 2012), as well as the antifungal nigericin, and antibiotic geldanamycin from S. violaceusniger YCED-9 (Shrivastava and Kumar 2018). These compounds are attributed to hypha development activated by a nutrient deficit. Their biological activities are well described in the works of Al-Askar et al. (2015), Errakhi et al. (2016), and Shekh and Naim (2017). In like manner, they are also regarded as stress metabolites because of their role in adaptivity during stress. Production of these metabolites involves the actions of some genes that exist majorly in clusters. It is in these clusters that regulatory proteins and phosphorylated guanosine nucleotide phosphate (ppGpp) (which is an important protein for metabolite synthesis) are encoded (Sivapragasam et al. 2017). Nutritional stress activates alarmone ppGpp which regulates antibiotic production. Streptomyces antibiotic regulatory proteins and lysosomal acid lipase families, which are species specific, are also important in metabolism pathway regulations. The type of signals sent and received by a Streptomyces determines the metabolites produced. Nutrient deficit sends a signal, pathogen attack also activates a signal, etc. In PGPS cell–cell communication, α-butyrolactones are the major signaling molecules. Some Streptomyces exhibiting biocontrol activities against some known plant pathogens are shown in Table 1.
Table 1

Biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activities of some PGPS

 

PGPS

Elicited effects

References

Biocontrol activities

Streptomyces griseus

Rhizoctonia solani

Merriman et al. (1974)

Streptomyces kasugaensis

Fusarium sp.

de Vasconcellos and Cardoso (2009)

Streptomyces J-2

 

Errakhi et al. (2016)

Streptomyces sp.

Sclerotium rolfsii

Gholami et al. (2014)

Streptomyces sanglieri

Ganoderma boninense

Azura et al. (2016)

Streptomyces griseorubens E44G

Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici

Al-Askar et al. (2015)

Streptomyces rochei ACTA1551

Kanini et al. (2013)

Streptomyces felleus YJ1

Sclerotinia sclerotiorum

Cheng et al. (2014)

Plant growth-promoting activities

Streptomyces anulatus S37

Streptomyces sp.

Grapevine

Bean

Chickpea

Couillerot et al. (2013)

Jarak et al. (2012)

Gopalakrishnan et al. (2015)

Streptomyces matansis BG5, Streptomyces sp. RSF17,

Streptomyces vinaceus CRF2, Streptomyces sp. CRF14,

Streptomyces pulcher CRF17, Streptomyces griseoincarnatus SCF18

 

Javaid and Sultan (2013)

Streptomyces PRIO41

Pepper

Robles-Hernández et al. (2015)

Streptomyces mutabilis

Wheat

Toumatia et al. (2016)

Streptomyces fumanus gn-2

Soybean

Doolotkeldieva et al. (2015)

Pathogen-antagonistic PGPS were also used to promote the growth of coniferous plants. In Brazil, there was the report of an isolate close to Streptomyces kasugaensis which was shown to inhibit the growth of Fusarium and Armillaria pine rot and it also showed plant growth promotion abilities on Pinus taeda seedlings under greenhouse experiment (de Vasconcellos and Cardoso 2009). Studies of El-Abyad et al. (1993) also showed the use of Streptomyces pulcher, Streptomyces canescens, and Streptomyces citreofluorescens in biocontrol of diseases caused by Fusarium oxysporum, Verticillium albo atrum, Alternaria solani, Pseudomonas solanacearum, and Clavibacter michiganensis subsp. michiganensis in tomatoes. It was reported that tomato growth was significantly improved. Another example was observed evident in the study conducted by Tokala et al. (2002) with the Streptomyces lydicus strain WYEC 108 in both growth chamber and greenhouse experiments. The result of this study was later used in the formulation and the commercialization of Actinovate® and Actino-Iron®, a well-known biocontrol product because of its unique traits (Crawford et al. 2005). It was observed that there was an increase in shoot and root length, and root wet weights in pea seedlings. There was also an increase in root nodulation, nodule size, and number of Rhizobium spp. As this was feasible in the more numerous and vigorous nodules found in PGPS-colonized plants than in the control plant, an increase in the number of bacteria per nodule, nitrogenase activity, and nodular assimilation of iron was also observed (Tokala et al. 2002). This is also supported by the work of Hoster et al. (2005). This ability is due to the production of antibiotics and enzymes (such as the chitinolytic enzymes) to inhibit pathogens, and of plant growth-promoting compounds like phytohormones, solubilization of phosphates, and competition with plant pathogens for substrates and nutrients (Charousová et al. 2016; de Vasconcellos and Cardoso 2009; Kinkel et al. 2012).

PGPS has also been widely used in the biocontrol of soil-borne fungal pathogens (Gopalakrishnan et al. 2013). The biocontrol ability against numerous phytopathogens Fusarium oxysporum, Penicillium digitatum, and Sclerotium rolfsii among others is well documented (Al-Askar et al. 2015; Priya et al. 2017). Their secondary metabolite-producing ability is the most important property of this genus in carrying out their biocontrol activities.

PGPS as biofertilizer

Despite their popularity as biocontrol agents, their functioning as biofertilizers has been partly understudied. Being one of the most abundant microbes in the microflora, and considering their effectiveness in plant root system colonization, it is surprising that they have not been adequately studied for plant growth promotion. They directly promote plant growth by the production of phytohormones (auxins, cytokinins, and gibberellins), siderophores scavenge ferric iron from the environment, nitrogen fixation and, suppression of stress in plant by production of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase activity (Sadeghi et al. 2012; Verma et al. 2011). The use of Streptomyces griseus in plant growth was reported by Merriman et al. (1974). In the work, the isolate was originally meant to serve as biocontrol but it was found out to have a tremendous effect on grain yield, dry foliage weight, tiller number, and advanced head emergence for both wheat and oat over controls especially when applied on carrots. Biocontrol efficacy of Streptomyces sp. against bacterial, Fusarium and Verticillium wilts in tomato was also reported by El-Abyad et al. (1993). In the study, tomato growth was significantly observed to improve due to the growth regulators produced by the inoculum. The release of phosphate through the actions of released malic acid and gluconic acids by Streptomyces mhcr0816 and Streptomyces mhce0811 respectively was reported in the study of Jog et al. (2014). Like most rhizobacteria, they are capable of directly affecting the growth of plants positively. Other works on PGPS acting as plant growth promoters on different crops are shown in Table 1.

Specific mechanisms of PGPS which can be exploited for plant growth promotion

A new discovery was made as a result of the interaction between PGPS and various yeast species. The co-culture resulted in a previously unknown reaction in PGPS cultures. This reaction which is glucose-repressible was called exploratory growth behavior by the PGPS which occurs as a result of deficient glucose in the PGPS-yeast environment. This means that glucose deficiency activates PGPS exploration through yeast stimulation (Jones et al. 2017). A rapid outgrowth of vegetative hyphae is a characteristic of exploratory growth behavior as observed in S. venezuelae which was estimated to be approximately 90 mm h−1 (Jones et al. 2017). On a closer look, the exploring hyphae do not seem to branch which may contribute to the spreading of the exploring PGPS colonies. This outward spreading is an advantage in the organism dominating its immediate environment by taking more space, while in the rhizosphere, the colony is able to outcompete other microbes through this exploratory growth mechanism. Perhaps, this might be the reason for its abundance compared to other soil microbes.

Aside from the exploratory growth mechanism, PGPS use volatile organic compounds (VOCs) to modulate environmental conditions through their actions as signals. These signals can result in regulating gene expression of surrounding microbes. They can act as elicitors of gene activation or repression as well as determine the response of other microbes in the soil environment. Furthermore, VOCs along with trimethylamine act as antibacterial and antifungal agents. Both Micrococcus luteus and Bacillus subtilis were being inhibited by the synergy of PGPS and trimethylamine (Jones et al. 2017). Trimethylamine raises the pH of the environment to a level that is not conducive to other microbes thereby affecting the transmembrane pH and proton motive forces.

Identification of candidate PGPS

Most Streptomyces species can be wrongly misjudged as good plant growth promoters based on their ability to produce metabolites. In most cases, these metabolites are virtually not important because they have not been proven to be useful in anyway. Again, not all metabolites produced are actually good for the plants, some are actually deleterious to plant health. In view of this, we briefly propose a “check” to identify important PGPS taking into consideration time factor, cost of experiments, and purpose of experiment.

One of the most important traits of a good plant growth promoter is root colonization (Bhattacharyya and Jha 2012; Olanrewaju et al. 2017). Although it has been reported that Streptomyces are good root colonizers, some are not and the degree also varies from one species to another. Before a species can be selected as a plant growth-promoting agent, the level of root colonization must be ascertained. It must be able to compete favorably well against other microbes to be able to exert its influence on the host plants.

We cannot underestimate the importance of the metabolites these species produce. As said earlier, not all metabolites have positive impacts. Using advanced tools and technologies, the genetic makeup and gene expression level in the organisms can be studied. Knowing this will help identify important genes, metabolites, and invariably functions of these genes. This can be made possible through the application of functional genomics and system biology. Cost and time have to be taken into consideration in this regard. Although advent of next generation sequencing (NGS) has substantially reduced the cost of sequencing, not all researchers can still afford to spend that amount on testing an organism. Since most Streptomyces genes are in clusters, these clusters can be identified including their mode of regulations. In Table 2, we can find examples of some species, their metabolites, and the gene locations.
Table 2

Some Streptomyces species, their gene clusters, metabolites, and functions of these metabolites

Species

Gene clusters

Metabolites reported

Functions of metabolites

References

S. griseus

Streptomycin biosynthetic genes

Streptomycin

Antibacterial

Lee et al. (2018)

Grixazone biosynthetic genes

Grixazone B

Produced as a parasiticide during low availability of phosphate

Arakawa (2018), Tsujimoto et al. (2016)

 

A factor

Induces the production of other secondary metabolites

Fiebig et al. (2018), Takano et al. (2016)

S. rochei

Lankacidin biosynthetic genes

Lankacidin C

Antibacterial

Lu et al. (2018)

Lankamycin biosynthetic genes

Lankamycin

Antibacterial

Antitumor

Lu et al. (2018)

S. avermitilis

Avermectin polyketide synthase

Avermectins

Antimicrobial

Antiparasitic

Pesticide

Cheng et al. (2018), Choi et al. (2018), Rath et al. (2018), Zhang et al. (2015)

S. clavuligelus

herABCDEFG genes

Cephamycin biosynthetic genes pcbAB

Clavulanic acid

Antibacterial

Flores-Gallegos and Nava-Reyna (2019), Romero-Rodríguez et al. (2018)

Cephamycin C

 

S. coelicolor

abeABCD; α-abeAgenes

Actinorhodin

Antibacterial

Čihák et al. (2017), Gao et al. (2012), Huang et al. (2001), Moore et al. (2012)

Prodiginines biosynthetic genes

Prodiginines

Antimalarial

Albaflavenone biosynthetic genes

Albaflavenone

Antibacterial

SCO7221

Germicidin A

 

S. venezuelae

Chloramphenicol biosynthetic genes

Jadomycin biosynthetic genes

Chloramphenicol

Jadomycin B

Antibacterial

Cytryn et al. (2017), Mousa and Raizada (2015), Thanapipatsiri et al. (2016)

S. cinnamonensi

Monensin biosynthetic genes

Monensin

Growth-promoting agent

Herbicide

AlMatar et al. (2017), Zhang et al. (2016)

S. rimosus

Oxytetracycline biosynthetic genes

Tetracyclines

Antibacterial

Lee et al. (2015), Petković et al. (2017)

S. aureofaciens

 

Aureomycin

Antibacterial

Francis (2017)

S. lydicus

 

Selamectin

Parasiticide

Antihelminthic

Selvakumar et al. (2014)

S. hygroscopicus

Geldanamycin biosynthetic genes

Geldanamycin

Antitumor

He et al. (2008)

Molecular markers can also be useful in this case. Regions coding for important traits that are valuable in the Streptomyces can easily be mapped and studied. Various molecular markers have been developed such as restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP), small nucleotide polymorphism (SNP), and diversity array technology (DArT) markers.

Application of NGS technology with molecular markers can be used in the identification of gene clusters present in Streptomyces. Once clusters can be correctly identified then the genes present in these clusters will definitely be known. Once known, functions of each gene can be known through functional genomics, proteomics, transcriptomics, and other omics technologies. Interactomics can be applied to know the interactions between the genes and subsequent responses to these interactions. The studies of these interactions can open up the pathway for the synthesis of the major bioactive compounds produced by each species in response to various interactions.

PGPS: antibiotic resistance, safety, and mode of application

Antibiotics are used to control invading microbes in humans, plants, and animals. Majority of these antibiotics are gotten from the Streptomyces genus. In the soil, these genera are relatively dominant. These antibiotics when secreted by soil Streptomyces help ward off invading pathogens. Not all antibiotics released are actually safe for the plants they are meant to protect. Some are actually deleterious to the plants. Effects of antibiotics on the environment are not yet well ascertained. On plants, toxicity of some antibiotics has been assayed and various negative and positive impacts have been recorded both on the plants and the soil. Variations were also observed in the activities of some antibiotics toward various plants as seen in the plant growth promotion of tetracycline on radish yields and the same antibiotics decreasing pinto yield (Batchelder 1982). The current interest of cutting down on chemical fertilizer use has increased the use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) as alternatives.

Development of antibiotic resistance in various sectors such as health, agriculture, and environment has led to some researchers suggesting the possibility of pathogens becoming resistant to PGPS. Since the basic mode of action of these PGPS against pathogens is the production of antibiotics and they are the largest producers of antibiotics, any development of resistance to these strains will have great impact on health and agricultural sectors. Pathogens can adapt to the antibiotics after long and frequent interactions by developing resistance. According to Martínez (2008), the release of a large amount of antibiotics might change the rhizosphere population dynamics as well as selection of resistance. This notably implies that concentration of the antibiotics in contact with the pathogens in the rhizosphere is key to the development of resistance. In as much as no concrete evidence have evolved concerning development of antibiotic resistance toward PGPS, there can be transfer of genes (horizontal and lateral) among various individuals in the rhizosphere. With this in mind, there is the possibility of these pathogens picking up resistance genes and thereby eliciting resistance against the particular antibiotics. This is so very possible but it is not enough to suggest that the pathogen will therefore be able to resist the PGPS because PGPS do not release only one type of antibiotics. If the pathogen develops resistance to a particular antibiotic, there are many more that will act against the pathogen either from the same PGPS or other PGPS present in the rhizosphere. In addition to antibiotics, PGPS and other biocontrol agents produce enzymes and various volatile compounds that are used as mechanisms of biocontrol.

Due to some of the metabolites produced, some safety concerns have been raised. Safety to the plants and humans to exposure to PGPR interactions is becoming a concern in certain quarters. No health issues either to plants or humans have been reported as a result of the use of any PGPR. Although various metabolites are produced as biocontrol agents, none of these have been associated with any negative effect on plants. Most metabolites causing diseases are from pathogens. An example is seen in pyocyanin which is produced by Pseudomonas aeruginosa, an opportunistic plant and human pathogen (Schroth et al. 2018; Stover et al. 2000). They are also regarded as plant growth promoters but they have been reported to induce growth of some plants (Tiwari and Singh 2017).

Most experiments on PGPR focus on the use of the microbes other than their products. This is better because it is these microbes that release the metabolites that are used as biocontrol agents or as growth promoters. As part of their mechanisms of actions, they produce antibiotics, volatile compounds, auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, ethylene, enzymes, etc. (Olanrewaju et al. 2017), which are used in plant growth promotion. Some research have focused on using some of these antibiotics directly on plants against pathogens and for plant growth promotion (Devireddy et al. 2017; Minden et al. 2017). The use of these antibiotics directly on soil can increase the rise of resistance in the soil (Cadena et al. 2018; Zhang et al. 2017). It is safer to use the PGPRs instead of their products as no negative effect have been recorded from their use. Application of the PGPR directly will also mean that all other mechanisms in the PGPR will be available for the plant use than selected metabolites which will act singly.

Conclusion and recommendations

Using plant growth-promoting bacteria to improve nutrient availability, biosynthesize metal chelators and phosphorus solubilizers, produce phytohormones, control phytopathogens, and alleviate abiotic stress in plants is an important practice for sustainable agriculture and also a good alternative to environmentally hazardous chemical fertilizers and pesticides (Olanrewaju et al. 2017). Except for few cases, PGPR are safe to the plants and humans.

The importance of Streptomyces strains in plant growth promotion is vividly expressed in their antipathogenic activities. Their metabolic potential should be a strong area to be looked at by researchers as it is paramount to majority of the plant growth promotion traits that have been discussed in this review. It is of little surprise that this rich source of bioactive compound-producing microbes has been underutilized so to say in agriculture. We believe that these microbes should be considered a great weapon in the search for viable plant growth promoters for sustainable agriculture.

Aside from trimethylamine, other VOCs produced by Streptomyces should be ascertained for their ability to alter environment pH as this might be another area to explore in biological control. More Streptomyces strains can be cultured and exploited toward their VOC production. VOCs represent a largely untapped class of metabolites, and further work will be required to fully appreciate the ecological roles of these compounds and agricultural potential.

Exploration by Streptomyces can also be targeted as it allows for a rapid and vast area covering by the organism which enhances closeness to the nutrient source. Communication has also been established by the production of certain VOCs. As discussed earlier, exploration results from interaction through the glucose-deficient phenomenon which means that different interactions when studied might pave way for new developments to be discovered which might be helpful in plant–microbe and microbe–microbe interactions for effective plant growth promotion.

The overall adaptive traits of the Streptomyces genus which make it possible to exist in a wide range of both aquatic and terrestrial environments can be attributed to the formation of spores. This trait gives it a greater edge over other microorganisms. The ecophysiological significance of the interactions between the genus and various parts of plants which confers its plant growth promotion traits should be well studied to vividly elucidate the mechanism involved.

Most of the activities of the Streptomyces genus come from its ability to produce secondary metabolites; therefore, mechanisms involved in the regulation and production of these metabolites as well as the regulation of the gene clusters should be well studied with the advent of next-generation sequencing and advancement in bioinformatics. Omics approaches will definitely contribute to the existing knowledge on Streptomyces rhizosphere colonization, crosstalk between the genus, and other organisms in the rhizosphere, etc.

Finally, research into bioinoculants formulation involving carriers, additives, and optimum delivery methods will increase the chances of these organisms to survive when introduced into the environment thereby increasing their acceptability.

There is no precise means to differentiate plant growth-promoting microbes as some microbes are termed as plant growth promoters and pathogens. Example of such is Pseudomonas aeruginosa that has been reported as both plant growth promoter and pathogen (Tiwari and Singh 2017). There should be a clarity between these two groups as they can all be found in the rhizosphere and endosphere of plants. Research should be directed toward better understanding and differentiation of these groups.

Although no report has emerged of pathogens being resistant to any biocontrol agent, control measures should be put in place as a check.

Notes

Funding information

North-West University is gratefully acknowledged for a school bursary to OOS. OOB would like to thank the National Research Foundation, South Africa for grants (Ref: UID81192, UID98460, UID104015, UID104050) that have supported research in her laboratory.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

References

  1. Adegboye MF, Babalola OO (2012) Taxonomy and ecology of antibiotic producing actinomycetes. Afr J Agric Res 7(15):2255–2261Google Scholar
  2. Al-Askar AA, Baka ZA, Rashad YM, Ghoneem KM, Abdulkhair WM, Hafez EE, Shabana YM (2015) Evaluation of Streptomyces griseorubens E44G for the biocontrol of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici: ultrastructural and cytochemical investigations. Ann Microbiol 65(4):1815–1824Google Scholar
  3. AlMatar M, Eldeeb M, Makky EA, Köksal F, Var I, Kayar B (2017) Are there any other compounds isolated from Dermacoccus spp at all? Curr Microbiol 74(1):132–144Google Scholar
  4. Arakawa K (2018) Manipulation of metabolic pathways controlled by signaling molecules, inducers of antibiotic production, for genome mining in Streptomyces spp. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek:1–9Google Scholar
  5. Azura AN, Yusoff M, Tan G, Jegadeesh R, Appleton D, Vikineswary S (2016) Streptomyces sanglieri which colonised and enhanced the growth of Elaeis guineensis Jacq. seedlings was antagonistic to Ganoderma boninense in in vitro studies. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 43(4):485–493Google Scholar
  6. Babalola OO, Kirby BM, Roes-Hill L, Cook AE, Cary SC, Burton SG, Cowan DA (2009) Phylogenetic analysis of actinobacterial populations associated with Antarctic Dry Valley mineral soils. Environ Microbiol 11(3):566–576Google Scholar
  7. Batchelder A (1982) Chlortetracycline and oxytetracycline effects on plant growth and development in soil systems 1. J Environ Qual 11(4):675–678Google Scholar
  8. Berdy J (2005) Bioactive microbial metabolites. J Antibiotics 58(1):1–26Google Scholar
  9. Bhattacharyya PN, Jha DK (2012) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): emergence in agriculture. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28(4):1327–1350Google Scholar
  10. Cadena M, Durso LM, Miller DN, Waldrip HM, Castleberry BL, Drijber RA, Wortmann C (2018) Tetracycline and sulfonamide antibiotic resistance genes in soils from Nebraska organic farming operations. Front Microbiol 9:1283Google Scholar
  11. Charousová I, Javoreková S, Medo J, Schade R (2016) Characteristic of selected soil Streptomycetes with antimicrobial potential against phytopathogenic microorganisms. J Microbiol Biotechnol Food Sci 5(64):64–68Google Scholar
  12. Cheng G, Huang Y, Yang H, Liu F (2014) Streptomyces felleus YJ1: potential biocontrol agents against the sclerotinia stem rot (Sclerotinia sclerotiorum) of oilseed rape. J Agric Sci 6(4):91Google Scholar
  13. Cheng Y, Yang R, Lyu M, Wang S, Liu X, Wen Y, Song Y, Li J, Chen Z (2018) IdeR, a DtxR-family iron-response regulator, controls iron homeostasis, morphological differentiation, secondary metabolism, and oxidative stress response in Streptomyces avermitilis. Appl Environ Microbiol:AEM. 01503-18Google Scholar
  14. Choi H-Y, Van Minh N, Choi JM, Hwang JY, Seo S-T, Lee S-K, Kim W-G (2018) Enzymatic synthesis of avermectin B 1a glycosides for the effective prevention of the pine wood nematode Bursaphelenchus xylophilus. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 102(5):2155–2165Google Scholar
  15. Čihák M, Kameník Z, Šmídová K, Bergman N, Benada O, Kofroňová O, Petříčková K, Bobek J (2017) Secondary metabolites produced during the germination of Streptomyces coelicolor. Front Microbiol 8(2495).  https://doi.org/10.3389/fmicb.2017.02495
  16. Couillerot O, Vatsa P, Loqman S, Ouhdouch Y, Jane H, Renault J-H, Clément C, Barka EA (2013) Biocontrol and biofertilizer activities of the Streptomyces anulatus S37: an endophytic actinomycete with biocontrol and plant-growth promoting activities. IOBC-WPRS Bull 86:271–276Google Scholar
  17. Crawford D, Kowalski M, Roberts M, Merrell G, Deobald L (2005) Discovery, development, and commercialization of a microbial antifungal biocontrol agent, Streptomyces lydicus WYEC108: history of a decade long endeavor. Soc Ind Microbiol News 55:88–95Google Scholar
  18. Cytryn E, Markiewicz Z, Popowska M (2017) Antibiotics and antibiotics resistance genes dissemination in soils antibiotics and antibiotics resistance genes in soils. Springer, pp 145–184Google Scholar
  19. de Vasconcellos RLF, Cardoso EJBN (2009) Rhizospheric streptomycetes as potential biocontrol agents of Fusarium and Armillaria pine rot and as PGPR for Pinus taeda. BioControl 54(6):807–816Google Scholar
  20. Devireddy AR, Inupakutika MA, Willmon D, Kakarla P, Puppala N, Cho Y (2017) Veterinary antibiotics influence trigonelline biosynthesis and plant growth in Arachis hypogaea L. Acta Agric Scand Sect B Soil Plant Sci 67(3):245–251Google Scholar
  21. Doolotkeldieva T, Bobusheva S, Konurbaeva M (2015) Effects of Streptomyces biofertilizer to soil fertility and rhizosphere’s functional biodiversity of agricultural plants. Adv Microbiol 5(07):555–571Google Scholar
  22. El-Abyad M, El-Sayed M, El-Shanshoury A, El-Sabbagh SM (1993) Towards the biological control of fungal and bacterial diseases of tomato using antagonistic Streptomyces spp. Plant Soil 149(2):185–195Google Scholar
  23. El-Tarabily K, Alkhajeh A field performance of endophytic actinomycetes in relation to plant growth promotion and biological control of Fusarium oxysporum a pathogen of tomato. In, 2016 2016. vol 106. Amer phytopathological soc 3340 pilot knob road, St Paul, MN 55121 USA, p 55–55Google Scholar
  24. El-Tarabily KA, Sivasithamparam K (2006) Non-streptomycete actinomycetes as biocontrol agents of soil-borne fungal plant pathogens and as plant growth promoters. Soil Biol Biochem 38(7):1505–1520Google Scholar
  25. El-Tarabily KA, Nassar AH, Sivasithamparam K (2008) Promotion of growth of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) in a calcareous soil by a phosphate-solubilizing, rhizosphere-competent isolate of Micromonospora endolithica. Appl Soil Ecol 39(2):161–171Google Scholar
  26. Errakhi R, Bouteau F, Barakate M, Lebrihi A, Compant S, Mathieu F (2016) Isolation and characterization of antibiotics produced by Streptomyces J-2 and their role in biocontrol of plant diseases, especially grey mould. Biocontrol of Major Grapevine Diseases: Leading Research:76Google Scholar
  27. Fiebig D, Storka J, Roeder M, Meyners C, Schmelz S, Blankenfeldt W, Scrima A, Kolmar H, Fuchsbauer HL (2018) Destructive twisting of neutral metalloproteases: the catalysis mechanism of the Dispase autolysis-inducing protein from Streptomyces mobaraensis DSM 40487. FEBS J 285(22):4246–4264Google Scholar
  28. Flores-Gallegos AC, Nava-Reyna E (2019) Plant growth-promoting microbial enzymes. Enzymes in food biotechnology. Elsevier, pp 521–534Google Scholar
  29. Francis D (2017) Antimicrobials from microbes. In: Sugathan S, Pradeep NS, Abdulhameed S (eds) Bioresources and bioprocess in biotechnology, vol 2. Springer, Singapore, pp 291–326Google Scholar
  30. Franco-Correa M, Quintana A, Duque C, Suarez C, Rodríguez MX, Barea J-M (2010) Evaluation of actinomycete strains for key traits related with plant growth promotion and mycorrhiza helping activities. Appl Soil Ecol 45(3):209–217Google Scholar
  31. Gao C, Mulder D, Yin C, Elliot MA (2012) Crp is a global regulator of antibiotic production in Streptomyces. MBio 3(6):e00407–e00412Google Scholar
  32. Gherbawy Y, Elhariry H, Altalhi A, El-Deeb B, Khiralla G (2012) Molecular screening of Streptomyces isolates for antifungal activity and family 19 chitinase enzymes. J Microbiol 50(3):459–468Google Scholar
  33. Gholami M, Khakvar R, Niknam G (2014) Introduction of some new endophytic bacteria from Bacillus and Streptomyces genera as successful biocontrol agents against Sclerotium rolfsii. Arch Phytopathol Plant Protect 47(1):122–130Google Scholar
  34. Gopalakrishnan S, Srinivas V, Sree Vidya M, Rathore A (2013) Plant growth-promoting activities of Streptomyces sp. in sorghum and rice. SpringerPlus 2:574.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-1801-2-574 Google Scholar
  35. Gopalakrishnan S, Srinivas V, Alekhya G, Prakash B, Kudapa H, Rathore A, Varshney RK (2015) The extent of grain yield and plant growth enhancement by plant growth-promoting broad-spectrum Streptomyces sp. in chickpea. SpringerPlus 4(1):1–10Google Scholar
  36. Goudjal Y, Toumatia O, Sabaou N, Barakate M, Mathieu F, Zitouni A (2013) Endophytic actinomycetes from spontaneous plants of Algerian Sahara: indole-3-acetic acid production and tomato plants growth promoting activity. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 29(10):1821–1829Google Scholar
  37. Goudjal Y, Toumatia O, Yekkour A, Sabaou N, Mathieu F, Zitouni A (2014) Biocontrol of Rhizoctonia solani damping-off and promotion of tomato plant growth by endophytic actinomycetes isolated from native plants of Algerian Sahara. Microbiol Res 169(1):59–65Google Scholar
  38. He W, Lei J, Liu Y, Wang Y (2008) The LuxR family members GdmRI and GdmRII are positive regulators of geldanamycin biosynthesis in Streptomyces hygroscopicus 17997. Arch Microbiol 189(5):501–510Google Scholar
  39. Hoster F, Schmitz JE, Daniel R (2005) Enrichment of chitinolytic microorganisms: isolation and characterization of a chitinase exhibiting antifungal activity against phytopathogenic fungi from a novel Streptomyces strain. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 66(4):434–442Google Scholar
  40. Hu J-B, Chen Y-C, Urban PL (2012) On-target labeling of intracellular metabolites combined with chemical mapping of individual hyphae revealing cytoplasmic relocation of isotopologues. Anal Chem 84(11):5110–5116Google Scholar
  41. Huang J, Lih C-J, Pan K-H, Cohen SN (2001) Global analysis of growth phase responsive gene expression and regulation of antibiotic biosynthetic pathways in Streptomyces coelicolor using DNA microarrays. Genes Dev 15(23):3183–3192Google Scholar
  42. Jarak M, Jafari T, Djuric S, Varga J, Cervenski J, Vasic M, Colo J (2012) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in bean production. Acta Hortic 960:409–415Google Scholar
  43. Javaid M, Sultan S (2013) Plant growth promotion traits and Cr (VI) reduction potentials of Cr (VI) resistant Streptomyces strains. J Basic Microbiol 53(5):420–428Google Scholar
  44. Jog R, Pandya M, Nareshkumar G, Rajkumar S (2014) Mechanism of phosphate solubilization and antifungal activity of Streptomyces spp. isolated from wheat roots and rhizosphere and their application in improving plant growth. Microbiol 160(4):778–788Google Scholar
  45. Jog R, Nareshkumar G, Rajkumar S (2016) Enhancing soil health and plant growth promotion by actinomycetes. Springer, pp 33–45Google Scholar
  46. Jones SE, Elliot MA (2017) Streptomyces exploration: competition, volatile communication and new bacterial behaviours. Trends Microbiol 25(7):522–531Google Scholar
  47. Jones SE, Ho L, Rees CA, Hill JE, Nodwell JR, Elliot MA (2017) Streptomyces exploration is triggered by fungal interactions and volatile signals. Elife 6:e21738Google Scholar
  48. Kanini GS, Katsifas EA, Savvides AL, Karagouni AD (2013) Streptomyces rochei ACTA1551, an indigenous Greek isolate studied as a potential biocontrol agent against Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici. Biomed Res Int 2013:387230–387230Google Scholar
  49. Kinkel LL, Schlatter DC, Bakker MG, Arenz BE (2012) Streptomyces competition and co-evolution in relation to plant disease suppression. Res Microbiol 163(8):490–499Google Scholar
  50. Kumari KS, Kalyani P, Vineela KC, Hemalatha V, Hemalatha KPJ (2017) Isolation of antibiotic producing actinomycetes from untapped soils of Yarada hills and assessment of their antimicrobial activities. IJSRET 3(2):290–293Google Scholar
  51. Lee MY, Kim HY, Lee S, Kim J-G, Suh J-W, Lee CH (2015) Metabolomics-based chemotaxonomic classification of Streptomyces spp. and its correlation with antibacterial activity. J Microbiol Biotechnol 25(8):1265–1274Google Scholar
  52. Lee L-H, FASc C, Gan K, Stach J, Wellington EM, Goh BH (2018) The search for biological active agent (s) from actinobacteria. Front Microbiol 9:824Google Scholar
  53. Lu C, Li J-M, Qi H, Zhang H, Zhang J, Xiang W-S, Wang J-D, Wang X-J (2018) Two new lankacidin-related metabolites from Streptomyces sp. HS-NF-1178. J Antibiot 71(3):397–401Google Scholar
  54. Martínez JL (2008) Antibiotics and antibiotic resistance genes in natural environments. Sci 321(5887):365–367Google Scholar
  55. Mercado-Blanco J, Bakker PA (2007) Interactions between plants and beneficial Pseudomonas spp.: exploiting bacterial traits for crop protection. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 92(4):367–389Google Scholar
  56. Merriman P, Price R, Kollmorgen J, Piggott T, Ridge E (1974) Effect of seed inoculation with Bacillus subtilis and Streptomyces griseus on the growth of cereals and carrots. Crop Pasture Sci 25(2):219–226Google Scholar
  57. Miguélez EM, Hardisson C, Manzanal MB (2010) Streptomycetes: a new model to study cell death. Int Microbiol 3(3):153–158Google Scholar
  58. Minden V, Deloy A, Volkert AM, Leonhardt SD, Pufal G (2017) Antibiotics impact plant traits, even at small concentrations. AoB Plants 9(2):1–19Google Scholar
  59. Monteiro P, Borba MP, Van Der Sand ST (2017) Evaluation of the antifungal activity of Streptomyces sp. on Bipolaris sorokiniana and the growth promotion of wheat plants. J Agric Sci 9(12):229Google Scholar
  60. Moore JM, Bradshaw E, Seipke RF, Hutchings MI, McArthur M (2012) Use and discovery of chemical elicitors that stimulate biosynthetic gene clusters in Streptomyces bacteria methods in enzymology. Vol 517. Elsevier, pp 367–385Google Scholar
  61. Mousa WK, Raizada MN (2015) Biodiversity of genes encoding anti-microbial traits within plant associated microbes. Front Plant Sci 6:231Google Scholar
  62. Olanrewaju OS, Glick BR, Babalola OO (2017) Mechanisms of action of plant growth promoting bacteria. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 33(11):197.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-017-2364-9 Google Scholar
  63. Petković H, Lukežič T, Šušković J (2017) Biosynthesis of oxytetracycline by Streptomyces rimosus: past, present and future directions in the development of tetracycline antibiotics. Food Technol Biotechnol 55(1):3Google Scholar
  64. Priya E, Thenmozhi R, Nagasathya A, Kumar DP, Thajuddin N, Muralitharan G (2017) Antagonistic potential of Streptomyces flavomacrosporus GACMPT-57 against plant pathogens. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res 4(1):68–73Google Scholar
  65. Rath S, Fostier AH, Pereira LA, Dioniso AC, de Oliveira Ferreira F, Doretto KM, Maniero L, Viera A, de Oliveira Neto OF, Dal Bosco SM (2018) Sorption behaviors of antimicrobial and antiparasitic veterinary drugs on subtropical soils. Chemosphere 214:111–122Google Scholar
  66. Robles-Hernández L, Hernández-Huerta J, González-Franco A, Hernández-Rodríguez O, Núñez-Barrios A, Pérez-Leal R (2015) Streptomyces PRIO41 as plant growth promoter of jalapeño pepper plants and as biocontrol agent of Fusarium. Phyton (Buenos Aires) 84(2):253–261Google Scholar
  67. Romero-Rodríguez A, Maldonado-Carmona N, Ruiz-Villafán B, Koirala N, Rocha D, Sánchez S (2018) Interplay between carbon, nitrogen and phosphate utilization in the control of secondary metabolite production in Streptomyces. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek:1–21Google Scholar
  68. Ruzzi M, Aroca R (2015) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria act as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci Hortic 196:124–134Google Scholar
  69. Sadeghi A, Karimi E, Dahaji P, Javid M, Dalvand Y, Askari H (2012) Plant growth promoting activity of an auxin and siderophore producing isolate of Streptomyces under saline soil conditions. World J Microbiol Biotechnol 28(4):1503–1509.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11274-011-0952-7 Google Scholar
  70. Safari M, Amache R, Esmaeilishirazifard E, Keshavarz T (2014) Microbial metabolism of quorum-sensing molecules acyl-homoserine lactones, γ-heptalactone and other lactones. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 98(8):3401–3412Google Scholar
  71. Schroth MN, Cho JJ, Green SK, Kominos SD (2018) Epidemiology of Pseudomonas aeruginosa in agricultural areas. J Med Microbiol 67(8):1191–1201Google Scholar
  72. Selvakumar G, Panneerselvam P, Ganeshamurthy AN (2014) Diversity utility and potential of actinobacteria in the agro-ecosystem. In: Maheshwari DK (ed) Bacterial diversity in sustainable agriculture. Vol 1. Springer, pp 23–40Google Scholar
  73. Shekh M, Naim A (2017) Isolation and characterization of antibacterial metabolites from Streptomyces species. Daffodil International UniversityGoogle Scholar
  74. Shrivastava P, Kumar R (2018) Actinobacteria: eco-friendly candidates for control of plant diseases in a sustainable manner new and future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering. Elsevier, pp 79–91Google Scholar
  75. Sivapragasam S, Deochand DK, Meariman JK, Grove A (2017) The stringent response induced by phosphate limitation promotes purine salvage in Agrobacterium fabrum. Biochem 56(43):5831–5843Google Scholar
  76. Som NF, Heine D, Holmes N, Knowles F, Chandra G, Seipke RF, Hoskisson PA, Wilkinson B, Hutchings MI (2017) The MtrAB two-component system controls antibiotic production in Streptomyces coelicolor A3 (2). Microbiol 163(10):1415–1419Google Scholar
  77. Sousa JAJ, Olivares FL (2016) Plant growth promotion by Streptomycetes: ecophysiology, mechanisms and applications. Chem Biol Technol Agric 3(1):24Google Scholar
  78. Stover C, Pham X, Erwin A, Mizoguchi S, Warrener P, Hickey M, Brinkman F, Hufnagle W, Kowalik D, Lagrou M (2000) Complete genome sequence of Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO1, an opportunistic pathogen. Nature 406(6799):959Google Scholar
  79. Takano H, Toriumi N, Hirata M, Amano T, Ohya T, Shimada R, Kusada H, Amano S-i, Matsuda K-i, Beppu T (2016) An ABC transporter involved in the control of streptomycin production in Streptomyces griseus. FEMS Microbiol Lett 363(14)Google Scholar
  80. Thanapipatsiri A, Gomez-Escribano JP, Song L, Bibb MJ, Al-Bassam M, Chandra G, Thamchaipenet A, Challis GL, Bibb MJ (2016) Discovery of unusual biaryl polyketides by activation of a silent Streptomyces venezuelae biosynthetic gene cluster. ChemBioChem 17(22):2189–2198Google Scholar
  81. Tiwari P, Singh JS (2017) A plant growth promoting rhizospheric Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain inhibits seed germination in Triticum aestivum (L) and Zea mays (L). Microbiol Res 8(2):73–79Google Scholar
  82. Tokala RK, Strap JL, Jung CM, Crawford DL, Salove MH, Deobald LA, Bailey FJ, Morra M (2002) Novel plant-microbe rhizosphere interaction involving Streptomyces lydicus WYEC108 and the pea plant (Pisum sativum). Appl Environ Microbiol 68(5):2161–2171Google Scholar
  83. Tom V, Sarah L, Stien B, Martine M, Sofie G (2016) Streptomyces as a plant’s best friend? FEMS Microbiol Ecol 92(8):fiw119Google Scholar
  84. Toumatia O, Compant S, Yekkour A, Goudjal Y, Sabaou N, Mathieu F, Sessitsch A, Zitouni A (2016) Biocontrol and plant growth promoting properties of Streptomyces mutabilis strain IA1 isolated from a Saharan soil on wheat seedlings and visualization of its niches of colonization. South Afr J Bot 105:234–239Google Scholar
  85. Tsujimoto M, Yoshida A, Shimizu T, Tomita T, Ohnishi Y, Kuzuyama T, Nishiyama M (2016) Aspartate kinase involved in 4-hydroxy-3-nitrosobenzamide biosynthesis in Streptomyces murayamaensis. Biosci Biotechnol Biochem 80(11):2255–2263Google Scholar
  86. Tyc O, Song C, Dickschat JS, Vos M, Garbeva P (2017) The ecological role of volatile and soluble secondary metabolites produced by soil bacteria. Trends Microbiol 25(4):280–292Google Scholar
  87. van Dissel D, Claessen D, van Wezel GP (2014) Morphogenesis of Streptomyces in submerged cultures. Adv Appl Microbiol 89:1–45Google Scholar
  88. Ventura M, Canchaya C, Tauch A, Chandra G, Fitzgerald GF, Chater KF, van Sinderen D (2007) Genomics of Actinobacteria: tracing the evolutionary history of an ancient phylum. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 71(3):495–548Google Scholar
  89. Verma V, Singh S, Prakash S (2011) Bio-control and plant growth promotion potential of siderophore producing endophytic Streptomyces from Azadirachta indica A. Juss. J Basic Microbiol 51(5):550–556Google Scholar
  90. Vijayabharathi R, Sathya A, Gopalakrishnan S (2015) Plant growth-promoting microbes from herbal vermicompost plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and medicinal plants. Springer, pp 71–88Google Scholar
  91. Zhang J, Yan Y-J, An J, Huang S-X, Wang X-J, Xiang W-S (2015) Designed biosynthesis of 25-methyl and 25-ethyl ivermectin with enhanced insecticidal activity by domain swap of avermectin polyketide synthase. Microb Cell Factories 14(1):152Google Scholar
  92. Zhang Y, Lin C-Y, Li X-M, Tang Z-K, Qiao J, Zhao G-R (2016) DasR positively controls monensin production at two-level regulation in Streptomyces cinnamonensis. J Ind Microbiol Biotechnol 43(12):1681–1692Google Scholar
  93. Zhang H, Li X, Yang Q, Sun L, Yang X, Zhou M, Deng R, Bi L (2017) Plant growth, antibiotic uptake, and prevalence of antibiotic resistance in an endophytic system of Pakchoi under antibiotic exposure. Int J Environ Res Public Health 14(11):1336Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

OpenAccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Food Security and Safety Niche Area, Faculty of Natural and Agriculture SciencesNorth-West UniversityMmabathoSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations