Contrasting colonization and plant growth promoting capacity between wild type and a gfp-derative of the endophyte Pseudomonas putida W619 in hybrid poplar
- 689 Downloads
This study aims to investigate the colonization of poplar by the endophyte Pseudomonas putida W619 and its capacity to promote plant growth. Poplar cuttings were inoculated with P. putida W619 (wild-type or gfp-labelled). The colonization of both strains was investigated and morphological, physiological and biochemical parameters were analyzed to evaluate plant growth promotion. Inoculation with P. putida W619 (wild-type) resulted in remarkable growth promotion, decreased activities of antioxidative defence related enzymes, and reduced stomatal resistance, all indicative of improved plant health and growth in comparison with the non-inoculated cuttings. In contrast, inoculation with gfp-labelled P. putida W619 did not promote growth; it even had a negative effect on plant health and growth. Furthermore, compared to the wildtype strain, colonization by the gfp-labelled P. putida W619::gfp1 was much lower; it only colonized the rhizosphere and root cortex while the wild-type strain also colonized the root xylem vessels. Despite the strong plant growth promoting capacity of P. putida W619 (wild-type), after gfp labelling its growth promoting characteristics disappeared and its colonization capacity was strongly influenced; for these reasons gfp labelling should be applied with sufficient caution.
Keywordsplant growth promotion endophyte poplar biomass production food-bioenergy conflict green fluorescent protein
This research was funded by the Institute for the Promotion of Innovation through Science and Technology in Flanders (IWT-Vlaanderen) for N.W. and by the Fund for Scientific Research Flanders (FWO-Vlaanderen), Ph.D. grant for J.B. The project was further supported by the UHasselt Methusalem project 08 M03 VGRJ. Work by S.T. was funded by Laboratory Directed Research and Development funds (LDRD05-063 and LDRD09-005) at the Brookhaven National Laboratory under contract with the U.S. Department of Energy.
- Babalola OO, Osir EO, Sanni AI, Odhiambo GD, Bulimo WD (2003) Amplification of 1-amino-cuclopropane-1-carboxylic (ACC) deaminase from plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in Striga-infected soil. Afr J Biotechnol 2:157–160Google Scholar
- Bergmeyer HU, Gawenn K, Grassl M (1974) Enzymes as biochemical reagents. In: Bergmeyer HU (ed) Methods in Enzymatic Analysis. Academic, NewYork, pp 425–522Google Scholar
- Bertagnolli BL, Soglio FKD, Sinclair JB (1996) Extracellular enzyme profiles of the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani isolate 2B-12 and of two antagonists, Bacillus megaterium strain B153-2-2 and Trichoderma harzianum isolate Th008. I. Possible correlations with inhibition of growth and biocontrol. Physiol Mol Plant P 48:145–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Mahaffee WF, Kloepper JW, Van Vuurde JWL, Van der Wolf JM, Van den Brink M (1997) Endophytic colonization of Phaseolus vulgaris by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 89B-27 and Enterobacter asburiae strain JM22. In: Ryder MHR, Stevens PM, Bowen GD (eds) Improving plant productivity in rhizosphere bacteria. CSIRO, Melbourne, p 180Google Scholar
- O’Sullivan DJ, O’Gara F (1992) Traits of fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. involved in suppression of plant root pathogens. Microbiology Reviews 56:662–676Google Scholar
- Porteous Moore F, Barac T, Borremans B, Oeyen L, Vangronsveld J, van der Lelie D, Campbell CD, Moore ERB (2006) Endophytic bacterial diversity in Poplar trees growing on a BTEX-contaminated site: The characterisation of isolates with potential to enhance phytoremediation. Syst Appl Microbiol 29:539–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer Series in Statistics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Weyens N, Taghavi S, Barac T, van der Lelie D, Boulet J, Artois T, Vangronsveld J (2009c) Bacterial diversity associated with English Oak and Common Ash growing on a TCE-contaminated site: characterization of strains with potential to improve phytoremediation. Environ Sci Pollut R 16:830–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar