Plant and Soil

, Volume 302, Issue 1–2, pp 149–161 | Cite as

Physiological and genetic analysis of root responsiveness to auxin-producing plant growth-promoting bacteria in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.)

  • Roseline Remans
  • Steve Beebe
  • Matthew Blair
  • German Manrique
  • Eduardo Tovar
  • Idupulapati Rao
  • Anja Croonenborghs
  • Roldan Torres-Gutierrez
  • Mohammed El-Howeity
  • Jan Michiels
  • Jos Vanderleyden
Regular Article


Plant root development can be largely affected through the association of roots with plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). However, little is known about the identity of plant genes enabling such PGPR-plant root associations. Differences in the responsiveness to PGPR among cultivars suggest genetic variation for this trait within germplasm. In this study, two genotypes of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), BAT477 and DOR364, were identified showing contrasting responsiveness in root development to inoculation with the PGPR Azospirillum brasilense Sp245. Inoculation with an A. brasilense Sp245 mutant strain strongly reduced in auxin biosynthesis or addition of increasing concentrations of exogenous auxin to the plant growth medium, indicated that the differential response to A. brasilense Sp245 among the bean genotypes is related to a differential response to the bacterial produced auxin. To further assess the role of the plant host in root responsiveness, a population of Recombinant Inbred Lines (RILs) of the DOR364×BAT477 cross was used to evaluate the efficacy of exogenous auxin on root development. We detected significant phenotypic variation among the RILs for basal root formation during germination upon addition of auxin to the growth medium. Genetic analysis revealed two quantitative trait loci (QTLs) associated with basal root responsiveness to auxin of which one explained 36% of the phenotypic variation among the RILs. This latter QTL mapped to the same location as a QTL for root tip formation at low P, suggesting that the host effect on root responsiveness to IAA interacts with specific root development. Also, significant correlations between basal root responsiveness to auxin and growth, root tips and root dry weight at low P were identified. To our knowledge, this is the first report on QTL detection for root responsiveness to auxin.


Common bean Indole-3-acetic acid Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria Quantitative trait loci Root responsiveness 



R.R. is a recipient of a predoctoral fellowship from the ‘Vlaamse Interuniversitaire Raad (VLIR)’ R.T. acknowledges the receipt of a predoctoral fellowship from the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven. We thank Dr. Myriam Duque for her assistance with the QTL analysis and Dr. Jerome Ribet and Alejandro Velasco for their contributions to the genetic map.


  1. Afanador LK, Hadley SD (1993) Adoption of a mini-prep DNA extraction method for RAPD marker analysis in common bean. Bean Improv Coop 35:10–11Google Scholar
  2. Aloni R, Aloni E, Langhans M, Ullrich CI (2006) Role of cytokinin and auxin in shaping root architecture: regulating vascular differentiation, lateral root initiation, root apical dominance and root gravitropism. Ann Bot 97:883–893PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Baldani VLD, Alvarez MAB, Baldani JI, Döbereiner J (1986) Establishment of inoculated Azospirillum spp. in the rhizosphere and in roots of field grown wheat and sorghum. Plant Soil 90:37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barratt NM, Davies PJ (1996) Developmental and genotypic differences in the response of pea stem segments to auxin. Plant Growth Regul 19:67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Basten CJ, Weir BS, Zeng ZB (1999) QTL Cartographer, Version 1.13. Department of Statistics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  6. Beebe S, Pedraza F, Rojas M, Gutierrez J, Tohme J (1998) A genetic map of common bean combining RFLP, RAPD, SCAR, and AFLP markers. Ann Rep Bean Impr Coop 41:95–96Google Scholar
  7. Benfey PN, Scheres B (2000) Root development. Curr Biol 10:813–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blair MW, Pedraza F, Buendia HF, Gaitan-Solis E, Beebe SE, Gepts P, Tohme J (2003) Development of a genome-wide anchored microsatellite map for common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Theor Appl Genet 107:1362–1374PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bliss FA (1985) Breeding for enhanced dinitrogen fixation potential of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). In: Ludden PW, Burris JE (eds) Nitrogen fixation and CO2 metabolism. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 303–310Google Scholar
  10. Bliss FA (1993) Breeding common bean for improved biological nitrogen fixation. Plant Soil 152:71–79CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Burdman S, Volpin H, Kigel J, Kapulnik Y, Okon Y (1996) Promotion of nod gene inducers and nodulation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) roots inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense Cd. Appl Environ Microbiol 62:3030–3033PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Burdman S, Kigel J, Okon Y (1997) Effects of Azospirillum brasilense on nodulation and growth of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Soil Biol. Biochem 29:923–929CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Christiansen I, Graham PH (2002) Variation in di-nitrogen fixation among Andean bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) genotypes grown at low and high levels of phosphorus supply. Field Crops Res 73:133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Churchill GA, Doerge RW (1994) Empirical threshold values for quantitative trait mapping. Genetics 138:963–971PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. CIAT (1996) Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical Annual report 1996. CIAT, Cali, ColombiaGoogle Scholar
  16. Costacurta A, Keijers V, Vanderleyden J (1994) Molecular cloning and sequence analysis of an Azospirillum brasilense indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase gene. Mol Gen Genet 243:463–472PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Dalmastri C, Chiarini L, Cantale C, Bevivino A, Tabacchioni S (1999) Soil type and maize cultivar affect the genetic diversity of maize root-associated Burkholderia cepacia populations. Microb Ecol 38:273–284PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Dellaporta SL, Wood J, Hicks JB (1983) A plant DNA minipreparation: Versio II. Plant Mol Biol Rep 1:19–21Google Scholar
  19. Dobbelaere S, Croonenborghs A, Thys A, Vande Broek A, Vanderleyden J (1999) Phytostimulatory effect of Azospirillum brasilense wild type and mutant strains altered in IAA production on wheat. Plant Soil 212:155–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dubeikovsky AN, Mordukhova EA, Kochetkov VV, Polikarpova FY, Boronin AM (1993) Growth promotion of black currant softwood cuttings by recombinant strain Pseudomonas fluorescens Bsp53A synthesizing an increased amount of indole-3-acetic acid. Soil Biol Biochem 25:1277–1281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hetrick BAD, Wilson GWT, Cox TS (1993) Mycorrhizal dependence of modern wheat cultivars and ancestors: a synthesis. Can J Bot 71:512–518Google Scholar
  22. Hetrick BAD, Wilson GWT, Gill BS, Cox TS (1995) Chromosome location of mycorrhizal responsive genes in wheat. Can J Bot 73:891–897CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Jebara M, Aouania ME, Payreb H, Drevon JJ (2005) Nodule conductance varied among common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) genotypes under phosphorus deficiency. J Plant Physiol 162:309–315PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaeppler SM, Parke JL, Mueller SM, Senior L, Stuber C, Tracy WF (2000) Variation among maize inbred lines and detection of quantitative Trait Loci for growth at low phosphorus and responsiveness to arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Crop Sci 40:358–364CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. King EB, Parke JL (1993) Biocontrol of aphanomyces root rot and pythium damping-off by Pseudomonas cepacia AMMD on four pea cultivars. Plant Dis 77:1185–1188CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kramer EM, Bennett MJ (2006) Auxin transport: a field in flux. Trends Plant Sci 11:382–386PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kucey RMN (1988) Plant growth altering effects of Azospirillum brasilense and Bacillus C-11-25 on 2 wheat cultivars. J Appl Bacteriol 64:187–195Google Scholar
  28. Lander E, Green P, Abrahamson J, Barlow A, Daley M, Lincoln S, Newburg L (1987) MAPMAKER: an interactive computer package for constructing primary genetic linkage maps of experimental natural populations. Genomics 1:174–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Liao H, Rubio G, Yan X, Cao A, Brown KM, Lynch JP (2001) Effect of phosphorus availability on basal root shallowness in common bean. Plant Soil 232:69–79PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Liu L, Kloepper JW, Tuzun S (1995) Induction of systemic resistance in cucumber by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: duration of protection and effect of host resistance on protection and root colonization. Phytopathology 85:1064–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lopez-Bucio J, Hernandez-Abreu E, Sanchez-Calderon L, Nieto-Jacobo MF, Simpson J, Herrera-Estrella L (2002) Phosphate availability alters architecture and causes changes in hormone sensitivity in the Arabidopsis root system. Plant Physiol 129:244–256PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lynch J, White JW (1992) Shoot nitrogen dynamics in tropical common bean. Crop Sci 32:392–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. MacMillan K, Emrich K, Piepho HP, Mullins CE, Price AH (2006) Assessing the importance of genotype×environment interaction for root traits in rice using a mapping population II: conventional QTL analysis. Theor Appl Genet 113(5):953–964PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Michiels J, Moris M, Dombrecht B, Verreth C, Vanderleyden J (1998) Differential regulation of Rhizobium etli rpoN2 gene expression during symbiosis and free-living growth. J Bacteriol 180:3620–3628PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Murphy J, Riley JP (1962) A modified single solution method for determination of phosphorus in natural waters. Anal Chim Acta 27:31–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Nacry P, Canivenc G, Muller B, Azmi A, Van Onckelen H, Rossignol M, Doumas P (2005) A role for auxin redistribution in the responses of the root system architecture to phosphate starvation in Arabidopsis. Plant Physiol 138:2061–2074PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Pedrosa A, Vallejos CE, Bachmair A, Schweizer D (2003) Integration of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) linkage and chromosomal maps. Theor Appl Geneti 106:205–212Google Scholar
  38. Persello-Cartieaux F, Nussaume L, Robaglia C (2003) Tales from the underground: molecular plant-rhizobacteria interactions. Plant Cell Environm 26:189–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Plazinski J, Rolfe BG (1985a) Azospirillum-Rhizobium interaction leading to a plant growth stimulation without nodule formation. Can J Microbiol 31:1026–1030CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Plazinski J, Rolfe BG (1985b) Interaction of Azospirillum and Rhizobium strains leading to inhibition of nodulation. Appl Environ Microbiol 49:990–993PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Remans R (2007) Searching for nitrogen under phosphorus deficiency: the interplay between common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), Rhizobium and plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. PhD thesis, K.U. LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  42. Remans R, Croonenborghs A, Torres Gutierrez R, Michiels J, Vanderleyden J (2007) Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on nodulation of Phaseolus vulgaris L. are dependent on plant P nutrition. Eur J Plant Pathol 119:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rubio G, Lynch JP (2007) Compensation among root classes in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Plant Soil 290:307–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Salvi S, Tuberosa R (2005) To clone or not to clone plant QTLs: present and future challenges. Trends Plant Sci 10:1360–1385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: a laboratory manual, 2ndnd edn. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, Cold Spring Harbor, N.YGoogle Scholar
  46. Shishova M, Yemelyanov V, Rudashevskaya E, Lindberg S (2006) A shift in sensitivity to auxin within development of maize seedlings. J Plant Physiol PMID:17074416Google Scholar
  47. Singh SP, Gepts P, Debouck DG (1991) Races of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris, Fabeaceae). Econ Bot 45:379–396Google Scholar
  48. Smith KP, Handelsman J, Goodman RM (1997) Modeling dose–response relationships in biological control: partitioning host responses to the pathogen and biocontrol agent. Phytopathology 87:720–729CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Smith KP, Handelsman J, Goodman RM (1999) Genetic basis in plants for interactions with disease-suppressive bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:4786–4790PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Snoeck C (2001) Host specificity determinants of Rhizobium sp. BR816 for early signaling in symbiotic interactions. PhD thesis, K.U.LeuvenGoogle Scholar
  51. Snoeck C, Beebe S, Vanderleyden J (2003) Strategies for genetic improvement of common bean and rhizobia towards efficient interactions. Plant Breeding Rev 23:21–72Google Scholar
  52. Somers E, Vanderleyden J, Srinivasan M (2004) Rhizosphere bacterial signalling: a love parade beneath our feet. Critical Rev Microbiol 30:205–240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Spaepen S, Vanderleyden J, Remans R (2007) Indole-3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism-plant signaling. FEMS Microbiol Rev 31:425–448PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Steenhoudt O, Vanderleyden J (2000) Azospirillum a free-living nitrogen-fixing bacterium closely associated with grasses: genetic, biochemical and ecological aspects. FEMS Microbiol Rev 24:487–506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Tang C, Drevon JJ, Jaillard B, Souche G, Hinsinger P (2004) Proton release of two genotypes of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) as affected by N nutrition and P deficiency. Plant Soil 260:59–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Teale WD, Paponov IA, Palme K (2006) Auxin in action: signalling, transport and the control of plant growth and development. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol 7:847–859PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Vadez V, Lasso JH, Beck DP, Drevon JJ (1999) Variability of N2-fixation in common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) under P deficiency is related to P use efficiency. Eyphytica 106:231–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Van Noorden GE, Ross JJ, Reid JB, Rolfe BG, Mathesius U (2006) Defective long distance auxin transport regulation in the Medicago truncatula super numeric nodules mutant. Plant Physiol 140:1494–1506PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Vande Broek A, Lambrecht M, Eggermont K, Vanderleyden J (1999) Auxins upregulate expression of the indole-3-pyruvate decarboxylase gene in Azospirillum brasilense. J Bacteriol 181:338–1342Google Scholar
  60. Vincent JM (1970) A manual for the practica1 study of root-nodule bacteria. Blackwell Scientific Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  61. Vlassak KM, Luyten E, Verreth C, van Rhijn P, Bisseling T, Vanderleyden J (1998) The Rhizobium sp. BR816 nodO gene can function as a determinant for nodulation of Leucaena leucocephala, Phaseolus vulgaris and Trifolium repens by a diversity of Rhizobium spp. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 5:383–392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wenzl P, Chaves A, Buitrag M, Patino G, Miles J, Rao I (2006) Development and validation of a hydroponic screening method to identify acid soil adapted genotypes of the tropical forage grass Brachiaria. The 18th World Congress of Soil Science,, 104–112
  63. Woodward AW, Bartel B (2005) Auxin: regulation, action, and interaction. Ann Bot (London) 95:707–735CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Xie H, Pasternak JJ, Glick BR (1996) Isolation and characterization of mutants of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium Pseudomonas putida CR12-2 that overproduce indoleacetic acid. Curr Microbiol 32:67–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Roseline Remans
    • 1
  • Steve Beebe
    • 2
  • Matthew Blair
    • 2
  • German Manrique
    • 2
  • Eduardo Tovar
    • 2
  • Idupulapati Rao
    • 2
  • Anja Croonenborghs
    • 1
  • Roldan Torres-Gutierrez
    • 1
  • Mohammed El-Howeity
    • 1
  • Jan Michiels
    • 1
  • Jos Vanderleyden
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre of Microbial and Plant Genetics, Department of Microbial and Molecular SystemsK.U. LeuvenHeverleeBelgium
  2. 2.Centro Internacional de Agricultura Tropical (CIAT)CaliColombia

Personalised recommendations