2015 11:10 AM

7 downloads 0 Views 319KB Size Report
their life cycles colonize the interior spaces of plant tissues, including roots, ..... 'rhizophagy' because roots consumed microbes (Paungfoo-Lonhienne et al.,. 16.
1     1  

9/22/2015 11:10 AM

2   3  

Functions, Mechanisms and Regulation of Endophytic and Epiphytic Microbial

4  

Communities of Plants

5   6  

Charles W. Bacon1 and James F. White, Jr.2

7   8  

1

9  

Unit, Athens, Georgia 30605; Email: [email protected]

USDA, ARS, US National Poultry Research Center, Toxicology & Mycotoxin Research

10   11  

2

12  

Jersey 08901; Email: [email protected]

Department of Plant Biology, Rutgers University, 59 Dudley Road, New Brunswick, New

13   14  

Abstract: Over the past several decades, we have come to appreciate that healthy plants

15  

host, within and on the surfaces of their tissues, endophytic and epiphytic fungi and

16  

bacteria that do not cause disease. Individual species (typically endophytes) of plants

17  

have been found to fall largely into one or more of three major functional groups: 1)

18  

Microbes that alleviate abiotic stress of the host; 2) Microbes that defend hosts from

19  

biotic stress (pathogens and herbivores); and 3) Microbes that support the host

20  

nutritionally through increased nitrogen, phosphorus, iron, etc. This functional aspect of

21  

plant microbiomes raises the potential to design and construct microbiomes for crop

22  

plants in order to enhance their cultivation with reduced agrochemical inputs and at lower

2     1  

cost. In order to design and construct functional microbiomes, we must first develop an

2  

understanding of the mechanisms by which plant microbiomes function. Examples of

3  

hypotheses for the abiotic stress tolerance mechanism include: 1) Oxidative stress

4  

protection by increased production of antioxidants produced either by the microbes or by

5  

hosts in response to microbes; 2) Ethylene reduction by production of ACC deaminase;

6  

and 3) Ammonia or ammonium detoxification and consequent oxidative stress avoidance.

7  

Mechanisms to explain biotic stress resistance generally include production of anti-

8  

herbivore or anti-pathogen defensive compounds by the microbe or by the host in

9  

response to the microbe (i.e., induced systemic resistance). Examples of hypothesized

10  

mechanisms to explain microbe-mediated enhanced plant growth include: 1) Stimulation

11  

of plant growth due to growth regulator production by microbes; 2) Increased absorption

12  

of nutrients by plants from the rhizosphere due to activities of microbes on roots; and 3)

13  

Increased supply of nitrogen obtained directly from diazotrophic microbes in plants.

14  

Factors by which plant endophyte communities are regulated are hypothesized to involve

15  

host-produced compounds that modify behavior of endophytic microbes, often reducing

16  

growth rates and suppressing pathogenic behaviors. These behavior-modifying

17  

compounds are proposed to include phenolic acids, quorum quenching compounds, and

18  

perhaps other secondary metabolites.

19   20  

Key Words: Endophyte Community, Plant Stress Tolerance, Pathogenicity Suppression

21   22   23  

1 Introduction Since confirmation of the germ theory of disease by Louis Pasteur in the late 19th

3     1  

century, microbes on plants have been primarily studied as causative agents of disease.

2  

Non-pathogenic microbes in or on plants were largely ignored as contaminants—or

3  

considered to be latent pathogens or early colonizing saprophytes that would become

4  

active as plant defenses waned or the plant senesced (Petrini, 1991). However, there

5  

were anomalous microbes colonizing plants that did not appear to be pathogenic under

6  

any circumstances. Freeman (1902) described an endophytic fungus inhabiting the

7  

tissues of the grass Lolium temulentum. Neill (1941) reported presence of a similar

8  

fungal endophyte in healthy tissue of the grass Festuca arundinacea. At that time no

9  

harmful or beneficial effects on the host plants could be documented for the endophytes

10  

and they were largely considered commensals of the plant host (Neill, 1941). Even root

11  

endophytic arbuscular mycorrhizae were considered commensals or weak pathogens of

12  

plants (Dangeard, 1900; Koide and Mosse, 2004). To most biologists microbes isolated

13  

from healthy plants were inconsequential and without any significant ecological function.

14  

Endophytic and epiphytic microbes comprise the non-pathogenic components of

15  

the plant microbiome. A close examination of the interactions of these microbes and

16  

plant metabolome may help us to gain a better understanding of the functions,

17  

mechanisms and regulation of plant microbiomes. Among the questions that we seek to

18  

answer in this review are the following: 1) Are plant microbiomes functional or are they

19  

rather non-functional? 2) What are the functions of plant microbiomes? 3) What are the

20  

biochemical interactions or signals that regulate behaviors in the community of microbes

21  

within plant tissues? How are plant microbiomes regulated?

22   23  

Endophytes are typically non-pathogenic fungi or bacteria that at some point in their life cycles colonize the interior spaces of plant tissues, including roots, stems,

4     1  

leaves, flowers or seeds (Stone et al., 2000; Schulz and Boyle, 2006). Endophytes may

2  

be restricted as to their distributions and metabolic activities within plant tissues,

3  

localized in tissues in a nearly dormant phase; or endophytes may be systemic through

4  

multiple tissues of plants (Rodriguez et al., 2009). In terms of host cell and tissue

5  

locations, endophytes are largely intercellular; bacterial endophytes in particular may

6  

become intracellular and enter into host cells in cytoplasm or become situated in

7  

periplasmic spaces, between the cell wall and the cell plasma membrane (Paungfoo-

8  

Lonhienne et al., 2010; Thomas and Sekhar, 2014; White et al., 2014a). Epiphytes are

9  

non-pathogenic fungi, bacteria, or algae that remain restricted to the plant surface without

10  

interior penetration throughout their life cycles (Zambell and White, 2014).

11  

A recent concern is the unknown levels of microbial colonizers and precise intra-

12  

tissue titer of endophytic organisms that inhabit plants. The microbe load is likely to be a

13  

co-regulated function of both the host and microbes. It is our contention that plants

14  

produce compounds by which they actively regulate the communities of microbes that

15  

enter into their tissues. We suggest that phenolic compounds that alter microbe growth

16  

rates and suppress pathogenicity traits are among the host-produced endophyte regulatory

17  

compounds. We also suggest that ‘quorum quenching’ compounds may be important in

18  

modifying endophyte behaviors and maintenance of endophytic communities in plants

19  

(Fuqua et al., 1994; Miller and Bassler, 2001; Bassler, 2002; Hogan, 2006; Hank and

20  

Bessler, 2004; Visick and Fuqua, 2005).

21   22  

2 Endophytic and epiphytic microbes as functional components of plant

23  

microbiomes

5     1  

With the advent of metagenomic analysis it has become clear that plants are host

2  

to many microbes that become endophytes or epiphytes of roots or aerial parts of plants

3  

(Bulgarelli et al., 2013). Further, it has been proposed that many of the microbes are

4  

recruited from soil populations of microbes in a process that involves plant enrichment of

5  

the rhizosphere with root secretions followed by colonization by compatible microbes

6  

into internal tissues of the plant (Zarraonaindia et al., 2015). Other plant microbiome

7  

inhabitants (e.g., Epichloë endophytes) do not originate in the soil but instead grow

8  

exclusively on plants (Spatafora et al., 2007; Torres and White, 2009).

9  

Several decades of investigation of microbial endophytes (Petrini, 1991; Clay,

10  

1988) and rhizobacteria (Kloepper et al., 2004) have left us with a fragmentary picture of

11  

the important role that the plant microbiome plays in supporting plant growth and

12  

survival. Although incomplete, it is now clear that endophytic and epiphytic microbes

13  

are functional components of the plant microbiome (White et al., 2014b). Endophytic

14  

microbes have been reported to fall into one or more of three major functional groupings:

15  

1) Microbes that alleviate abiotic stress of the host plant; 2) Microbes that defend host

16  

plants from biotic stressors; and 3) Microbes that support the host nutritionally, either

17  

through increased nitrogen, phosphorus, iron or vitamins. This functional aspect of non-

18  

pathogenic endophytes and epiphytes of plants raises the potential to design and construct

19  

microbiomes for crop plants in order to enhance their cultivation with reduced

20  

agrochemical inputs and at lower costs. In order to synthesize functional microbiomes

21  

we must first understand how they function.

22   23  

3 Abiotic stress alleviation functional group

6     1  

Enhanced abiotic stress tolerance due to inoculation with non-pathogenic

2  

microbes has been noted for mycorrhizae (Hameed et al., 2014), and fungal and bacterial

3  

endophytes (Malinowski et al., 2005; Waller et al., 2005; Rodriguez et al., 2008; Saraf et

4  

al., 2014; Gond et al., 2015). Waller et al. (2005) demonstrated that the root endophyte

5  

Pyriformospora indica enhances salt tolerance in its host plant. Malinowski et al. (2005)

6  

found that the fungal endophyte Epichloë coenophiala confers increased drought

7  

tolerance to its grass host. Saraf et al. (2014) and Gond et al. (2015) demonstrated

8  

enhanced salt tolerance in plants due to infection with bacterial endophytes.

9  

Mechanistically, the phenomenon of microbe enhanced stress tolerance is not well

10  

understood. In terms of functions, Rodriguez et al. (2008) proposed that different

11  

endophytes might adapt plants to different stresses. Evidence in support of this

12  

hypothesis was that endophytes in coastal plants provided salt tolerance to plants, while

13  

those near hot springs provided heat tolerance to plants; microbes conferring tolerance to

14  

one type of stress did not confer tolerance to the other type of stress. We will not

15  

understand the phenomenon of endophyte enhanced stress tolerance until we understand

16  

the precise mechanisms of stress tolerance enhancement.

17  

What exactly are the microbes doing to increase abiotic stress tolerance in plants?

18  

Several mechanisms for microbe-enhanced plant stress tolerance have been proposed.

19  

Some examples of proposed mechanisms are as follows: 1) Oxidatave stress protection

20  

by increased production of antioxidants produced either by the microbes or hosts in

21  

response to microbes; 2) Regulation of ethylene levels by microbial production of ACC

22  

deaminase, the enzyme that degrades the precursor of ethylene; 3) Ammonia or

23  

ammonium detoxification and consequent oxidative stress avoidance; and 4) Osmotic

7     1  

adjustment through production of osmolytes by microbes.

2   3   4  

4 Oxidative stress protection via antioxidants This hypothesis came about because it was recognized that many endophytes

5  

cause an increased expression of antioxidant enzymes and antioxidant phenolic

6  

compounds in plants. Increased production of antioxidants is important because the

7  

result of many abiotic stress events is an increase in reactive oxygen in plant tissues

8  

(White and Torres, 2009). Endophyte-induced increases in antioxidants would counteract

9  

stress-induced reactive oxygen. Waller et al. (2005) demonstrated that in the infection of

10  

barley roots with the fungal endophyte Pyriformospora indica the host shows an increase

11  

in anti-oxidative capacity due to activation of the host’s glutathione-ascorbate cycle.

12  

White and Torres (2009) suggested that oxidative stress avoidance through production of

13  

anti-oxidative compounds could account for Epichloë-endophyte enhanced stress

14  

tolerance in host grasses. The production of antioxidant substances by many endophytic

15  

microbes (Schulz et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2007) seems to provide further support for

16  

this hypothesized mechanism. Hamilton et al. (2012) reviewed literature on diverse types

17  

of fungal endophytes in diverse host plants and found support for the hypothesis that

18  

endophyte mediation of reactive oxygen may play a key role in endophyte induced

19  

changes in host plant oxidative stress susceptibility. Hamilton and Bauerle (2012) further

20  

showed that antioxidant activity in endophyte containing host plants was elevated under

21  

abiotic stress compared to endophyte-free hosts. These authors hypothesized that abiotic

22  

stress protection was largely a function of oxidative stress protection.

23  

8     1   2  

5 Enhanced stress tolerance through ethylene regulation From research on the effects of plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPB) on plants

3  

an elegant mechanism for enhanced stress tolerance was proposed to explain increases in

4  

abiotic stress tolerance (Saraf, Jha and Patel, 2014). This mechanism is based on the

5  

production of excess ethylene when plants are under stress. Normal levels of ethylene

6  

are important for proper growth regulation in plants; stress-generated ethylene in high

7  

concentrations results in plant growth inhibition, although the precise mechanism is not

8  

clear (Saravanakumar and Samiyappan, 2007). Some bacterial endophytes that enhance

9  

stress tolerance produce an enzyme ACC deaminase that degrades the precursor of

10  

ethylene, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC). Degradation of ACC releases

11  

ammonia and α-ketobutyrate and prevents formation of ethylene. ACC deaminase

12  

appears to be among the metabolites produced by some non-pathogenic bacterial and

13  

fungal symbionts of plants. Microbe-produced ACC deaminase cleaves ACC leaving the

14  

microbe with important nutrients to support growth. It has been proposed that growth

15  

stimulation of plants bearing some bacteria may be the result of ACC deaminase activity

16  

where the bacteria remove ethylene that represses plant growth, permitting growth

17  

stimulation that results from auxin secretion by the microbes. However, experiments that

18  

involved comparing performance of plants transformed with genes to express ACC

19  

deaminase to non-transformed plants bearing symbiotic bacteria under stress conditions

20  

showed that non-transformed plants with bacteria outperformed transformed plants (Saraf

21  

et al., 2014). This seems to indicate that the mechanism of microbe-enhanced stress

22  

tolerance and plant growth stimulation may involve more than ACC deaminase.

23  

9     1   2  

6 Ammonia or ammonium detoxification hypothesis This mechanism involves ammonia/ammonium scavenging by endophytic or

3  

epiphytic microbes. Most fungi and bacteria that associate with plants have ammonia

4  

transporters that they may use to absorb free ammonia from host tissues and cells.

5  

Ammonia is one product that builds up in tissues during photorespiration when levels of

6  

oxygen in plants increase and carbon dioxide levels fall. High levels of ammonia that are

7  

generated during photorespiration in tissues results in generation of high levels of

8  

reactive oxygen and oxidative stress (Kiraly et al., 2013). The high affinity of some

9  

microbial endophytes for ammonia (see White et al., 2015) makes them ideal

10  

scavengers/detoxifiers of excess ammonia. Reduction in levels of ammonia in plant

11  

tissues and cells would have the consequence of reducing oxidative stress in plants. One

12  

interesting aspect of this hypothesized mechanism along with the previous ethylene

13  

regulation mechanism is that both mechanisms actually relate to mechanisms whereby

14  

the microbe extracts organic nitrogen from host cells. It is reasonable to expect to see a

15  

flow of nutrients from plant to microbe and that excesses of any nutrient might be drained

16  

off by the microbial symbionts, resulting in host cell detoxification.

17   18  

7 Stress tolerance through endophyte-mediated osmotic adjustment

19  

One of the early ideas regarding endophyte-enhanced tolerance to drought or salt

20  

stress was that it involved osmotic adjustment (Arachevaleta et al., 1989; Elmi and West,

21  

1995). Osmotic adjustment is the capacity of plant cells to adjust their cytoplasmic

22  

osmotically active solutes in order to maintain turgor pressure in response to dehydration

23  

stress (DaCosta and Huang, 2006). In tall fescue infected by the endophytic fungus

10     1  

Epichloë coenophiala osmotic adjustment was measured to occur in tiller meristems of

2  

the grass during periods of drought, enabling the grass to resume growth more quickly

3  

after the cessation of the period of drought (Elmi and West, 1995). The significance of

4  

endophyte-mediated enhanced drought tolerance in tall fescue is that it enabled

5  

cultivation of the grass in drought prone areas where the grass could not be cultivated

6  

without the fungal endophyte. It has been proposed that secreted fungal endophyte

7  

alkaloids such as lolines or secreted fungal sugar alcohols (e.g., mannitol or arabitol) may

8  

be partially responsible for increased osmotic adjustment capacity in tall fescue grass

9  

(Richardson et al., 1992).

10  

Endophyte-enhanced salt stress tolerance may also relate to the osmotic

11  

adjustment mechanism. Recently, Gond et al. (2015) showed that a rhizobacterium

12  

Pantoea agglomerans conferred tolerance to salt stress in tropical corn and demonstrated

13  

up-regulation of several plant aquaporin genes. The aquaporins are proteins that function

14  

in water flow through cell membranes (Peng et al., 2007). It is logical that aquaporins

15  

and water movement between cells and the apoplast would be critical in adjusting

16  

osmotic potentials in plant tissues (Peng et al., 2007). In this respect it is interesting to

17  

note that P. agglomerans has been demonstrated to produce and secrete 1, 3-propanediol,

18  

a compound that is osmotically active (Barbirato et al., 1996). Whether 1,3-propanediol

19  

or other secreted metabolites could be osmoprotectants, inducing osmotic adjustment in

20  

tropical corn has not been ascertained.

21   22   23  

8 Poly-mechanistic microbe-enhanced abiotic Stress tolerance in plants The mechanisms for microbe-enhanced abiotic stress tolerance previously

11     1  

described could be considered competing hypotheses. On the other hand, they may not

2  

be mutually exclusive and multiple mechanisms could be in effect to induce abiotic stress

3  

tolerance. In this model for microbe-induced abiotic stress tolerance, multiple

4  

mechanisms could be in operation to differing degrees during stress events to ameliorate

5  

negative effects on plant hosts. Different mechanisms could be in operation depending

6  

on the microbes involved. For example, nitrifying bacteria that associate with roots may

7  

be particularly adept at capturing ammonia and converting it to nitrate. Nitrifiers could

8  

be working via the ammonia detoxification mechanism in plants that grow in aquatic

9  

habitats where ammonia may accumulate in high concentrations (Kiraly et al., 2013).

10  

Most microbes that associate with plants produce auxin. In many of these plant-

11  

associated microbes, ACC deaminase could be produced to degrade ACC as one avenue

12  

whereby microbes can extract nutrients from plants. Abiotic stress incited by soil heavy

13  

metals could be counteracted by antioxidants produced directly by microbes or by hosts

14  

in response to microbes. In situations where drought severely restricts plant growth

15  

osmotic adjustment facilitated by microbes might protect fragile meristems in which

16  

microbes grow so that recovery may occur rapidly once the drought ends. It seems likely

17  

that microbe-induced abiotic stress tolerance could be the result of more than one

18  

mechanism. Multiple mechanisms could explain the ‘habitat-adapted stress tolerance

19  

symbiosis phenomenon’ described by Rodriguez et al. (2008) where microbes adapt host

20  

plants to particular stresses in the environment of the host. Using the example provided

21  

by Rodriguez et al. (2008), the mechanisms that adapt a plant to tolerate heat stress may

22  

be different from the combination of mechanisms that adapt a plant to tolerate salt stress.

23  

12     1  

9 Protection from pathogens

2  

Bacterial endophytes in genus Bacillus are known to produce a suite of antifungal

3  

and antibacterial lipopeptides, including iturins, bacillomycins, fengycins, and surfactins

4  

(Gond et al., 2014; White et al., 2014c). Lipopeptides inhibit fungal and bacterial

5  

pathogens by imbedding in cell membranes and producing pores that make cells leaky

6  

and prevent cellular growth or metabolic activity. The lipopeptide surfactin is also

7  

known to inhibit viruses through dissolution of the lipid envelope and the protein shell of

8  

the virus particles (Ongena and Jacques, 2008). The frequent occurrence of Bacillus

9  

endophytes in natural populations of plants suggests that many wild populations may

10  

have disease protection employing lipopeptides, compliments of their Bacillus

11  

endophytes (White et al., 2014c). Endophyte infection in general may result in

12  

expression of disease resistance genes in the host plant. In Bacillus endophytes in corn it

13  

was shown that Bacillus endophytes resulted in induced expression of defense related

14  

genes in the plant (Gond et al., 2014). In this study Gond et al. (2014) found that corn

15  

seedlings inoculated with the endophytic bacterium Bacillus subtilis showed an increased

16  

expression of defense-related genes PR1 and PR4 compared to seedlings that were not

17  

inoculated with the bacterium. The details of the interactions between endophytes and

18  

host plants that result in up-regulation of resistance genes are presently unknown.

19  

Enhanced fungal disease protection has been shown to occur in several grasses

20  

infected by fungal endophytes of genus Epichloë, including grasses Festuca rubra, F.

21  

arundinaceae, F. pratensis, Elymus cylindricus, and Lolium perenne (Clarke et al., 2006;

22  

Li et al., 2006; Gwinn and Gavin, 1992; Wiewiora et al., 2015). Ambrose and Belanger

23  

(2012) identified antifungal protein genes in fungal endophytes of fine fescue grasses.

13     1  

They hypothesized that the antifungal protein genes were a case of horizontal transfer of

2  

antifungal genes from genera Penicillium or Aspergillus (order Eurotiales), where the

3  

genes are widespread, into a narrow group in genus Epichloë (order Hypocreales).

4  

Experiments suggested that the antifungal genes in Epichloë were functional and

5  

expressed within the grass host.

6  

Moy et al. (2000) proposed a pathogen exclusion mechanism for Epichloë

7  

endophyte enhanced resistance to fungal pathogens. This mechanism was based on

8  

observations of a superficial network of mycelium belonging to the endophytes that

9  

developed on leaf blade surfaces of grasses. The superficial mycelium was hypothesized

10  

to be defensive in function, ‘defensive nets’ that physically excluded entry of fungal

11  

pathogens into leaves (Tadych and White, 2007).

12   13   14  

10 Anti-herbivory effects Anti-herbivory is one of the earliest documented effects in plants infected with

15  

endophytic microbes. These reports describe in considerable detail toxicity from

16  

endophyte-infected grasses to cattle, sheep, and other livestock (Bacon et al., 1977;

17  

Belesky and Bacon, 2009; White et al., 2003). Following these reports, it was shown that

18  

numerous herbivorous organisms were deterred from consuming endophyte-infected

19  

grasses, including insects, arachnids, nematodes and mammals (Belesky and Bacon,

20  

2009; Bacetty et al., 2009a; Bacetty et al., 2009b; Siegel et al., 1991; Rowan et al., 1986;

21  

Bush et al., 1997). These reports relate to the agricultural importance of endophytes both

22  

at the ecological and agricultural levels of concern. In this regard, the nature of

23  

antiherbivory induced by endophyte-infected pasture grasses has received the most

14     1  

attention, with most work focused on endophyte-infected-tall fescue and perennial

2  

ryegrass. The ecological importance of antiherbivory suggests a role in determining host

3  

species abundance, and perhaps could play a role in host speciation. It has been

4  

established that numerous ergot alkaloids in the foliage of endophyte-infected grasses are

5  

defensive in nature, serving to repel herbivores of all types (Lyons et al., 1986; Porter et

6  

al., 1977). Endophytic species of bacteria and fungi often produce in planta one or more

7  

compounds that serve to deter grazing, although under strict agricultural management

8  

natural grazing deterrence is not possible. Cattle and other livestock under pasture

9  

situations are forced to consume endophyte-infected forage.

10  

A diversity of biologically active compounds that deter feeding by animals, plant

11  

pathogens, and other pests are produced by microbial populations within plants. The

12  

chemistry, pharmacology, and functions as antibiotics, growth enhancers, nematicides,

13  

and host activity are diverse, complex, and have been reviewed (Belesky and Bacon,

14  

2009; Porter et al., 1977; Snook et al., 2009; Tanaka et al., 2014; Ongena and Jacques,

15  

2008), and will not be repeated here.

16  

Bacterial endophytes are also important in producing defensive compounds that in

17  

most instances have not been demonstrated to occur in planta. Such strains are however

18  

used as biocontrol agents to prevent or reduce infections from pathogens particularly on

19  

crops. In the case of the genus Bacillus, most of the defensive compounds identified to

20  

date include a combination of isomers related to the lipopeptide and related biosurfactants

21  

(Grangemard et al., 1999). Thus, we find that the surfactins are found in association with

22  

the fengycins, and or the iturins, bacillomycin D, and multiple isomers of each (Snook et

23  

al., 2009; Bacon et al., 2012; Tanaka et al., 2014; Ongena and Jacques, 2008). The

15     1   2  

abundance of each within a plant will exert an overall effect on a pathogen. The biological uses of biosurfactants are primarily those related to the ability of

3  

surfactins to cause membrane dissolution of pathogenic microbes and this ability is

4  

effective at very low concentrations. Biosurfactants are effective controls of some Gram-

5  

positive and most Gram-negative bacteria, and they are anti-viral, anti-fungal, antitumor,

6  

and anti-mycoplasma (Desai and Bonat, 1997; Heerklotz and Seelig, 2001). The

7  

revelations that the surfactins at very low concentrations can serve as elicitors of induced

8  

systemic resistance in plants (Jourdan et al., 2009; Ongena et al., 2007) adds complexity

9  

to mechanisms of action for the surfactins as biocontrol substances.

10   11   12  

11 Nutritional functions of the plant microbiome It is already clear that mycorrhizal, actinorhizal and rhizobial components of plant

13  

microbiomes function nutritionally. The ubiquitous mycorrhizal associations have been

14  

demonstrated to enhance access of hosts to soil reserves of organic and inorganic

15  

nutrients. Actinorrhizae (also called Frankia) have evolved in just three orders of dicots,

16  

including Fagales, Cucurbitales, and Rosales; Rhizobia evolved in the dicot order

17  

Fabales. Actinorhizal and rhizobial symbioses provide nitrogen to host plants via

18  

nitrogen fixation from the atmosphere (Wall, 2000).

19  

The mechanism that evolved in actinorhizal and rhizobial symbioses for nitrogen

20  

fixation involved nodules and restriction of oxygen in the nitrogenase active areas. In

21  

contrast, many plants bear endophytic and epiphytic bacteria that may be found in all

22  

parts of plants, but nodules are not formed. Some of these endophytic microbes are

23  

diazotrophic. It has been proposed that endophytic or epiphytic diazotrophs could

16     1  

provide nutrients to plants even though they lack nodules (Baldanicteria and Baldani,

2  

2005). This process has been called associative nitrogen fixation. However, the

3  

importance of associative nitrogen fixation to the nitrogen budgets of most plants has

4  

been disputed (James, 2000). The biggest issue is the question of whether nitrogen fixed

5  

by microbes actually moves from microbe to the plant host. This uncertainty stems from

6  

the absence of any clearly articulated mechanism for transfer of nitrogen from microbe to

7  

plant, along with lack of information on the transfer of nitrogen into plant tissues.

8  

Although, often plants that have been inoculated with non-pathogenic microbes show

9  

growth stimulation, this effect is often attributed to growth regulator effects where

10  

microbes increase root growth resulting in increased soil nutrient absorption. It has been

11  

difficult to attribute enhanced plant growth to increased nitrogen supply from nitrogen

12  

fixation rather than increased root capacity. However, recently, Pankievics et al. (2015)

13  

demonstrated that a diazotrophic and endophytic strain of Azospirillum brazilense

14  

provided nitrogen to its grass host via ammonia excretion.

15  

White et al. (2012, 2015) proposed a method for transfer of nitrogen from

16  

microbe to plant that involved transfer of organic nitrogen to plants. In this hypothesized

17  

mechanism, referred to as oxidative nitrogen scavenging, microbes secrete enzymes to

18  

degrade secretions or plant associated substances. Plants secrete reactive oxygen onto

19  

microbes and their secreted enzymes, and enzymes are then denatured; later plants and

20  

microbes secrete proteases (Godlewski and Adamczyk, 2007) that further degrade

21  

denatured enzymes into peptides that may be absorbed by plants and bacteria.

22   23  

In order to evaluate potential transfer of nutrients from endophytic bacteria to host plants Beltran-Garcia et al. (2014) conducted isotopic nitrogen tracking experiments. In

17     1  

one experiment an endophytic bacterium, Bacillus tequilensis, was labeled with 15N by

2  

its cultivation in a medium that contained a 15N-labeled nitrogen. The 15-N-labeled

3  

bacteria were then watered onto plants of Agave tequilana over several months. 15N-

4  

labeled nitrogen was detected in the chlorophyll molecules in the plant after mass-spec

5  

analysis. Detection of the 15N label in plant molecules demonstrated conclusively that

6  

nitrogen in the bacteria passed to the plant. In another experiment comparing absorption

7  

of 15N-labeled live bacteria to absorption of nitrogen in 15N-labeled heat-killed bacteria,

8  

it was shown that significantly more nitrogen moved into the plants when bacteria were

9  

alive than when heat-killed bacteria were used. This result demonstrated that efficient

10  

movement of nitrogen from microbe to plant was a function of a living endophytic

11  

microbe and not simply the result of mineralization of bacterial proteins in soils around

12  

plant roots.

13  

Another mechanism of transfer of nutrients from microbe to plant was proposed

14  

by Paungfoo-Lonhienne et al. (2010) who showed that microbes were internalized into

15  

root cells and degraded over time. These authors denominated the microbe consumption

16  

process ‘rhizophagy’ because roots consumed microbes (Paungfoo-Lonhienne et al.,

17  

2013). Similar internalization and degradation of bacterial cells in seedling roots was

18  

also described by Beltran-Garcia et al. (2014) and White et al. (2014). Thomas and

19  

Sekhar (2014) observed similar intracellular colonization by bacteria in tissue cultures of

20  

banana. There is a growing body of evidence that plants may obtain some nutrients by

21  

direct consumption of microbes or their secreted proteins. However, it is still not clear

22  

whether direct consumption of microbes or the scavenging of nutrients from microbes is

23  

a significant source of nutrients for plants.

18     1  

It has been shown that some roots of seedlings do not show gravitropic responses

2  

unless microbes colonize roots. White et al. (2015) demonstrated that grass roots do not

3  

show gravitropic response unless seed-vectored bacteria are present. We have also

4  

observed that Smilax spp. (greenbrier) seedling roots also lose the gravitropic response

5  

without the presence of microbes; fungal colonization of seedling roots seemed to restore

6  

the gravitropic response of roots (Zambell C. and White JF, Unpublished). The tendency

7  

of roots to show anomalous growth suggests that microbes must be present to provide a

8  

nutrient or other signal of their presence and readiness to participate in the symbiosis.

9  

Proteins or vitamins needed by the plant could easily be a signal that the right microbial

10   11  

partners are present. Since Godlewski and Adamczyk (2007) first reported protease activity in roots it

12  

has become clear that plants have more options for acquiring nutrients from microbes

13  

than was previously believed. It became clear that nutrient transfer to plants did not need

14  

to be comparable to that seen in rhizobia or actinorhizae, but instead could involve

15  

organic degradation processes. It currently seems evident that plants may acquire

16  

nutrients by direct consumption of microbes, but also by consumption of microbial

17  

proteins or from ammonia secreted by microbes. Future research will need to evaluate

18  

how important these sources of nutrients are for plant development.

19   20   21   22   23  

12 Phosphate solubilizing microbes Phosphate is the second most important nutrient for plant growth after nitrogen. Although phosphorus is generally abundant in soils, it is often unavailable for absorption

19     1  

in an insoluble mineral or organic complex (Rengel and Marschner, 2005). The

2  

phosphorus solubilizing features of microbes include: 1) release of organic acids, protons,

3  

siderophores, hydroxyl ions, or carbon dioxide, 2) release of enzymes (e.g. phosphatase),

4  

3) organic complex degradation, and phosphate mineralization (Behera et al., 2014;

5  

Sharma et al., 2013). In order to identify microbes (fungi and bacteria) that are capable

6  

of phosphate solubilization generally a pre-screen is used that consists of tricalcium

7  

phosphate (TCP) agar. If a microbe is able to clear TCP it is generally considered to be

8  

capable of solubilizing phosphate; however, there are many instances of false positives

9  

using this technique, and because of these Bashan et al. (2013) advocated testing

10  

potential phosphate solubilizer microbes more rigorously using model plants. Some

11  

endophytic and rhizobacterial microbes have been shown to secrete organic acids that

12  

degrade rocks and release nutrients that host plants may absorb (Puente et al., 2009). The

13  

capacity to degrade rocks to liberate nutrients may be critical for plants that grow on rock

14  

surfaces.

15   16   17   18  

13 Regulation of the plant endophyte community We hypothesize that plants produce compounds whose function is to regulate

19  

endophyte communities by suppressing unrestrained growth and pathogenicity traits of

20  

the microbes. An endophytic species, either bacterial or fungal, is housed intercellularly

21  

or intracellularly, as groups of cells (or hyphae). The endophyte community typically

22  

consists of multiple species of microbes occupying the same habitat (e.g., roots, stems,

23  

leaves, seeds, etc.) (Zambell and White, 2014). We propose that individual microbes of

20     1  

endophyte communities are under some degree of host control (Persoh, 2015). Important

2  

questions in this regard include: How does the host control endophytic communities?

3  

And, how are pathogenic members of the community suppressed?

4  

We hypothesize that plant-produced secondary metabolites (typically phenolics)

5  

are among the compounds that impact on the growth and behavior of endophytic

6  

microbes in plants. Supporting this hypothesis is the fact that phenolics in particular are

7  

up-regulated in grass plants that contain Epichloë endophytes, when compared to plants

8  

that are free of the endophytes (White and Torres, 2009). It seems more than logical that

9  

a host would evolve ways to suppress behaviors of endophytic microbial community

10  

members that could lead to destruction the host. Such compounds would likely alter

11  

behaviors of microbial symbionts with pathogenic capabilities to keep them in a non-

12  

pathogenic mode of behavior. Further, virulence suppression is a sustainable way that

13  

hosts could deal with microbial symbionts that could revert to pathogenicity, since

14  

changing behavior of microbes is less likely than microbe-killing strategies to place

15  

evolutionary selective pressure on microbial genomes to evolve resistance to the

16  

virulence suppression mechanism.

17  

Roots of plants are often highly colonized by microbes that enter into root tissues

18  

endophytically (Schulz and Boyle, 2006). Roots also contain high concentrations of

19  

phenolic acids (Carvalhais et al., 2011). We suggest a regulatory function for the phenolic

20  

organic acids in roots. In nodules of rhizobial plants, host-produced phenolic organic

21  

acids are in especially high concentration and have been shown to stimulate production of

22  

auxin by the bacteria. Thus phenolic acids produced by hosts change microbe behavior,

23  

inducing microbes to produce auxin that likely functions to trigger release of nutrients

21     1  

from host cells (Mandal et al., 2010). Tadych et al. (2015) demonstrated that cranberry

2  

fruits produced phenolic acids, quinic and benzoic acids, shown to inhibit both fungal

3  

growth rates and reactive oxygen secretion by several fruit rot-inducing fungi. Thus,

4  

phenolic acids effectively suppressed fungal virulence and cranberry rot disease.

5  

An examination of the scientific literature regarding organic acid effects on

6  

pathogenic microbes resulted in additional support for a pathogenic suppression role for

7  

organic acids (Spratt et al., 2012; Koike et al., 1979; Cowan, 1999). In an examination of

8  

bacteria that cause dental caries and gingivitis, phenolic acids from plants, including

9  

oxalic, shikimic and quinic acids, were all shown to interfere with pathogenicity related

10  

traits of the bacteria (Spratt et al., 2012). Another phenolic acid, caffeic acid (obtained

11  

from the consumption of mulberry leaves) in the digestive juice of silkworm larvae was

12  

found to suppress pathogenicity of Streptococcus faecalis, a major pathogen and normal

13  

component of the gut microbiome of silkworms (Koike et al., 1979). Streptococcus

14  

faecalis only becomes a problem when silkworms are fed on an artificial diet free of the

15  

precursors that give rise to caffeic acid. Polyphenols (including, quercitin, coumarin and

16  

tannins) produced by plants have been found to have anti-microbial activities and have

17  

been hypothesized to protect plants from microbial aggression (Cowan, 1999; Jimenez et

18  

al., 2015).

19   20  

14 Quorum sensing and quorum quenching

21  

14.1 Function

22  

With regard to regulation of endophytic communities, we propose that phenomena such

23  

as quorum sensing are at play in regulating all levels within endophytic and epiphytic

22     1  

communities. Quorum sensing is a mechanism based on microbial cell density often

2  

expressed in biofilms that regulate the behavior patterns of the contributing cells

3  

including production and secretion of virulence factors, development of protective

4  

membranes or biofilms, developmental competence, morphological expression, motility,

5  

sporulation, and communications system such as bioluminescence. Biofilms are used as

6  

predictors of quorum mechanisms, which in most part is based on the historic discovery

7  

in bacteria (Fuqua et al., 1994), although such structures are also produced in

8  

multicellular organisms such as fungi (Harding et al., 2009; Hogan 2006). Because of

9  

quorum sensing, gene expression is regulated, resulting in an array of physiological

10  

expressions within a microbiome. Animal pathogens display a variety of quorum sensing

11  

systems that control the expression of dozens of specific genes that represent loci for

12  

virulence control (Parsek and Greenberg, 2000). It is possible that within the intercellular

13  

spaces microbial cell behavior is regulated by quorum sensing similar to the regulation

14  

observed in biofilms. Demonstration that biofilms are also produced by both cellular

15  

and multicellular fungi suggest the importance of this structure for quorum sensing as it is

16  

in bacteria (Harding et al., 2009; Westwater et al., 2005).

17   18  

14.2 Occurrence

19  

Quorum sensing was discovered in Vibrio fischeri, a Gram-negative marine bacterium

20  

(Fuqua et al., 1994; Miller and Bassler, 2001; Bassler, 2002) and this mechanism was

21  

later shown to exist in other Gram-negative species (Hornby et al., 2001; Gonzalez and

22  

Marketon, 2003; Chen et al., 2004; Raina et al., 2010). The occurrence of quorum

23  

sensing is now known to occur in Gram-positive bacteria, yeasts, and other genera of

23     1  

fungi (see Albuquerque and Casadevall, 2012; von Bodman, 2003; Hogan, 2006; and

2  

Braeken et al., 2008 for reviews). An important component of quorum sensing is

3  

signaling and there is evidence that interspecies signaling also occurs (Shank and Kolter

4  

2006). It is used to regulate a complex assortment of physiological activities, including

5  

symbiosis and pathogenicity (Miller and Bassler 2001; Uroz et al., 2009). For instance,

6  

species of Pseudomonas, Agrobacterium, and other genera exhibit quorum sensing-

7  

regulated pathogenicity or determinants (von Bodman et al., 2003; Uroz et al., 2009).

8  

This suggests that such sociomicrobiological interactions are necessary for maintenance

9  

and function within the intercellular milieu. Further, Miller and Bassler (2001) have

10  

argued that quorum sensing was one of the earlier steps in the development of complex

11  

organisms. Others have attempted, although casually, to indicate and identify quorum

12  

sensing in social insects such as ant, and bees (Pratt, 2005; Seeley and Visscher, 2006).

13  

The fact that density-dependent regulation in microorganisms serves to regulate behavior

14  

of the microbes suggests that quorum sensing is important to survival of the microbes.

15  

There are convenient laboratory bioassays and biosensor organisms that are used

16  

to detect quorum sensing and quorum-quenching compounds, and these, along with

17  

numerous compounds identified from the use of such bioassays and techniques have been

18  

previously reviewed (McLean et al., 2004; Kalia, 2013; Koh et al., 2013; Rasmussen and

19  

Givskov, 2006; Rasmussen, 2005a,b; Uroz et al., 2009).

20   21  

14.3 Quorum sensing and relations to microbes and plant performance

22  

Quorum sensing is also interactive with other resistance mechanisms, including oxidative

23  

stress resistance (Westwater et al., 2005). Studies using mutants devoid of key

24     1  

components of quorum sensing have demonstrated the breakdown in resistance to

2  

antibiotics, rapid cell death, and the demise of the population when it is disrupted.

3  

Applications of quorum sensing principals have led to the reverse application for quorum

4  

sensing: the disruptions of pathogenic organisms for use in plant and human medicines.

5  

Further, there are intense searches for quorum quenching or inhibitory compounds with

6  

the resulting anticipation of using these for therapeutic control of pathogenic organisms

7  

to both plants and animals (von Bodman et al., 2003; Rice et al., 2005; Uroz et al., 2009).

8   9  

The mechanism through which quorum sensing occurs employs hormone-like compounds referred to as autoinducers or quorum-sensing metabolites. Thus, it is these

10  

substances whose concentrations are directly related to the population density. When this

11  

density is exceeded a cascading series of regulatory responses are triggered leading

12  

specific genes that are either repressed or derepressed. These expressions lead to events

13  

such as antibiotic production, biofilm formation, and production of virulence factors that

14  

tend to modulate host reaction.

15   16  

14. 4 Quorum sensing metabolites

17  

The sensing metabolites or autoinducers responsible for quorum sensing differ in various

18  

groups of organisms. Gram-negative bacteria use acylated homoserine lactones as

19  

autoinducers, while Gram-positive bacteria use oligopeptides. A universal autoinducer

20  

has not yet been identified in fungi. Several studies have indicated that in yeast, and

21  

other fungi the autoinducer appears to be the isoprenoid farnesol. Farnesol, which was

22  

discovered in Candida albicans, was found to be an effective signaling molecule (Hornby

23  

et al., 2001). Farnesoic acid is equally effective. Additional species identified as having

25     1  

quorum sensing include Histoplasma capsulatum, Ceratocystis ulmi, Saccharomyces

2  

cerevisiae, Crytococcus neoformans, Neurospora crassa and Fusarium species (Severin

3  

et al., 2008; Roca et al., 2005; Hornby et al., 2004; Lee et al., 2007).

4  

It is speculated that farnesol and farnesoic acid are parts of the system that serves

5  

to potentiate the levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which has several roles in

6  

cellular functions, both negative and positive. Both farnesol and farnesoic acid are

7  

stimulatory compounds that produce lag phase during the growth of yeast and function to

8  

control ROS-dependent signaling, reducing the deleterious effects produced by ROS.

9   10  

14. 5 Microbial quorum quenching metabolites

11  

The activity of farnesol in some fungi is best described as quorum inhibiting or

12  

quenching, indirectly implying that perhaps there is quorum sensing, and these include

13  

Fusarium graminearum, Penicillium spp., Aspergillus fumigatus, A. nidulans, and A.

14  

niger (Albuquerque and Casadevall, 2012; Garcia-Contreras et al., 2013; Semighini et al.,

15  

2008; Lorek et al., 2008; Dichtl et al., 2010; Rasmussen and Givskov, 2006). Presently,

16  

there are well over thirty species of Penicillium that produce penicillic acid and patulin,

17  

two quorum-quenching compounds. Most fusaria tested produce the fusaric acids known

18  

to be phytotoxins, but which based on structures might also be quorum-quenching

19  

compounds, since they are produced in planta in such small amounts that do not produce

20  

a phytotoxic response.

21  

Other mycotoxins produced by most strains of Fusarium verticillioides include

22  

the fumonisins that are sphingolipids and may in fact be quorum signals or quenching

23  

metabolites useful for specific metabolic antagonisms during their endophytic life in

26     1  

plants. Pathogens such as the fusaria are not obligate biotrophs and probably have a

2  

variety of ways of regulating their host defenses during their transient existence with

3  

plants. Lipids are reported as being signaling molecules for pathogenic fungi (Shea and

4  

Poeta, 2006).

5   6  

14.6 Plant quorum quenching metabolites

7  

In addition to quorum sensing and quenching metabolites produced by microbes, there

8  

are several instances of plant species producing quorum-sensing inhibitors, as well as

9  

green and brown algae (Braeken et al., 2008; Uroz et al., 2009; Rasmussen et al., 2005a;

10  

Rasmussen and Givskov, 2006; Kalia, 2013). Such quorum quenching compounds are

11  

considered to serve as defense against quorum sensing pathogenic species. Mycotoxins

12  

such as fusaric acid, penicillic acid, and patulin are now viewed as quorum quenching

13  

compounds produced by various fungi that disrupt quorum-sensing regulation induced by

14  

pathogenic bacteria (Rasmussen et al., 2005b). Quorum sensing metabolites are sought

15  

out for the development of novel compounds for use in preventing infections of plants

16  

and animals by pathogens. The chemical structures identified as quorum quenching

17  

substances are diverse and most do not have any similarity to the structures identified as

18  

quorum sensing or quenching metabolites in microorganisms (Rasmussen et al., 2005a;

19  

Rasmussen and Givskov, 2006).

20  

Studies of quorum quenching are anticipated to provide alternative ways to

21  

control the interactions of microbes with their hosts. New disease control methods will

22  

develop from a better understanding of microbiome functioning and regulation, both of

23  

which should prove useful in manipulating all plant microbiomes with tremendous

27     1  

benefits to agriculture. Additional studies are required to accomplish this goal, which we

2  

believe is possible, especially with the use of novel endophytic microbes.

3   4  

15.1 Conclusions

5  

Plants are colonized by microbial communities that inhabit exterior and interior parts of

6  

roots, rhizomes and aerial structures. Many of these non-pathogenic microbes have been

7  

shown to modify the way that plants grow and respond to biotic and abiotic stresses. The

8  

biological functions of these microbes appear to be enhancement of the ability of host

9  

plants to grow, survive and thrive in their particular habitats. Our knowledge of the

10  

mechanisms whereby microbes interact with host plants to enhance growth and stress

11  

tolerance is still limited. An increased focus on the metabolic interactions of symbiotic

12  

microbes and plant hosts is warranted in order to better understand the symbiosis between

13  

microbes and plants, and more effectively utilize these widespread mutualisms in

14  

agriculture.

15   16   17  

28     1  

References:

2  

Albuquerque P, Casadevall, A. 2012. Quorum sensing in fungi—a review. Med Mycol

3  

50:337-345.

4   5  

Ambrose K, Belanger F. 2012. SOLID-SAGE analysis of endophyte-infected red fescue

6  

reveals numerous effects of host transcriptome and an abundance of highly expressed

7  

fungal secreted proteins. PLOS One 7(12): e53214. Doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0053214

8   9   10  

Arachevaleta M, Bacon CW, Hoveland CS, Radcliffe DE. 1989. Effect of the tall fescue endophyte on plant response to environmental stress. Agron J 81: 83-90.

11   12  

Bacon CW, Hinton DM, Mitchell TR, Snook ME, Olubajo B. 2012. Characterization of

13  

endophytic strains of Bacillus mojavensis and their production of surfactin isomers. Biol

14  

Control 62: 1-9.

15   16  

Bacon CW, Porter JK, Robbins JD, Luttrell ES. 1977. Epichloe typhina from toxic tall

17  

fescue grasses. Appl Environ Microbiol 34:576-581.

18   19  

Bacetty AA, Snook ME, Glenn AE, Noe JP, Hill N, Culbreath A, Timper P, Nagabhyru

20  

P, Bacon CW. 2009a. Toxicity of endophyte-infected tall fescue alkaloids and grass

21  

metabolites on Pratylenchus scribneri. Phytopathology 99: 1336-1345.

22   23  

Bacetty AA, Snook ME, Glenn AE, Noe JP, Hill N, Nagabhyru P, Bacon CW. 2009b.

29     1  

Chemotaxis disruption in Pratylenchus scribneri by tall fescue root extracts and

2  

alkaloids. J Chem Ecol 35: 844-850.

3   4  

Belesky DP, Bacon CW. 2009. Tall fescue and associated mutualistic toxic fungal

5  

endophytes in agroecosystems. Tox Rev 28: 102-117.

6   7  

Baldanicteria. JJ, Baldani VLD. 2005. History of biological nitrogen fixation research in

8  

graminicolous plants: special emphasis on the Brazilian experience. Ann Brazil Acad Sci

9  

77: 549-579.

10   11  

Barbirato F, Grivet JP, Soucaille P, Bories A. 1996. 3-hydroxypropionaldehyde, an

12  

inhibitory metabolite of glycerol fermentation to 1,3-propanediol by Enterobacter

13  

species. App Environ Microbiol 62: 1448-1451.

14   15  

Bashan Y, Kamnev AA, de-Bashan LE. 2013. A proposal for isolating and testing

16  

phosphate-solubilizing bacteria that enhance plant growth. Biol Fertil Soils 49: 1-2.

17  

DOI: 10.1007/s00374-012-0756-4.

18   19  

Bassler BL. 2002. Small talk. Cell-to-cell communication in bacteria. Cell 109: 421-

20  

424.

21   22  

Behera BC, Singdevsachan SK, Mishra RR, Dutta SK, Thatoi HN. 2014. Diversity,

23  

mechanism and biotechnology of phosphate solubilizing microorganisms in mangrove—a

30     1  

review. Biocat Agricul Biotech 3: 97-110.

2   3  

Beltran-Garcia M, White JF, Prado FM, Prieto KR, Yamaguchi LF, Torres MS, Kato MJ,

4  

Madeiros HG, Di Mascio P. 2014. Nitrogen acquisition in Agave tequilana from

5  

degradation of endophytic bacteria. Sci Report 4: 6938. DOI:1038/srep06938

6   7  

Braeken K, Daniels R, Ndayizeye M, Vanderleyden J, Michiels J. 2008. Quorum sensing

8  

in bacteria-plant interactions. In Nautiyal CS, Dion JP (eds), Molecular mechanisms of

9  

plant and microbe coexistence. Soil Biology. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp 265-289.

10   11  

Bulgarelli D, Schlaeppi K, Spaepen S, van Themaat EVL, Schulze-Lefert P. 2013.

12  

Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64:

13  

807-838.

14   15  

Bush LP, Wilkinson HH, Schardl CL. 1997. Bioprotective alkaloids of grass-fungal

16  

endophyte symbioses. Plant Physiol 114:1-7.

17   18  

Carvalhais LC, Dennis PG, Fedoseyenko D, Hajirezael M-R, Borriss R, von Wirén N.

19  

2011. Root exudation of sugars, amino acids, and organic acids by maize as affected by

20  

nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, and iron deficiency. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 174: 3-11.

21   22  

Chen HM, Fujita Q, Clardy J, Fink GR. 2004. Tyrosol is a quorum-sensing molecule in

23  

Candida albicans. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 101: 5048-5052.

31     1   2  

Clay K. 1988. Fungal endophytes of grasses: a defensive mutualism between plants and

3  

fungi. Ecology 69:10-16.

4   5  

Cowan MM. 1999. Plant Products as antimicrobial agents. Clinical Microbiology

6  

Reviews 12: 564-570.

7   8  

Garcia-Contreras R, Maeda T, Wood TK. 2013. Resistance to quorum-quenching

9  

compounds. App Environ Microbiol 79: 6840-6846.

10   11  

DaCosta M, Huang B. 2006. Osmotic adjustment associated with variation in bentgrass

12  

tolerance to drought stress. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 131: 338-344.

13   14  

Dangeard PA. 1900. Le Rhizophagus populinus. Botaniste 7: 285-287.

15   16  

Desai JD, Banat IM. 1997. Microbial production of surfactants and their commercial

17  

potential. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev 61: 47-64.

18   19  

Dichtl K, Ebel F, Dirr F, Routier FH, Heesemann J, Wagener J. 2010. Farnesol

20  

misplaces tip-localized Tho proteins and inhibits cell wall integrity signaling in

21  

Aspergillus fumigatus. Mol Microbiol 76: 1191-1204.

22   23  

Elmi AA, West CP. 1995. Endophyte effects on tall fescue stomatal response, osmotic

32     1  

adjustment, and tiller survival. New Phytol 131: 61-67.

2   3  

Freeman EM. 1902. The seed fungus of Lolium temulentum L, the darnel. Philos Trans

4  

196: 1-29.

5   6  

Fuqua WC, Winans SC, Greenberg EP. 1994. Quorum sensing in bacteria: the LuxR-

7  

Luxl family of cell density-responsive transcriptional regulators. J Bacteriol 176: 269-

8  

275.

9   10  

Godlewski M, Adamczyk B. 2007. The ability of plants to secrete proteases by roots.

11  

Plant Physiol Biochem 45: 657-664.

12   13  

Gond SK, Bergen MS, Torres MS, White JF. 2014. Endophytic Bacillus spp. produce

14  

antifungal lipopeptides and induce host defence gene expression in maize. Microbiol Res

15  

172: 79-87. DOI: 10.1016/j.micres.2014.11.004

16   17  

Gond SK, Torres MS, Bergen MS, Helsel Z, White JF. 2015. Induction of salt tolerance

18  

and up-regulation of aquaporin genes in tropical corn by rhizobacterium Pantoea

19  

agglomerans. Lett Appl Microbiol 60: 392-399. DOI:10.1111/lam.12385.

20   21  

Gonzalez JE, Marketon MM. 2003. Quorum sensing in nitrogen fixing rhizobia.

22  

Microbiol. Mol Biol Rev 67: 574-592.

23  

33     1  

Grangemard I, Bonmatin JM, Bermillon J, Das BC, Peypoux F. 1999. Lichenysins G, a

2  

novel family of lipopeptide biosurfactants from Bacillus licheniformis IM 1307:

3  

production, isolation and structural evaluation by NMR and mass spectrometry. J

4  

Antibiot 52: 363-373.

5   6  

Gwinn KD, Gavin AM. 1992. Relationship between endophyte infestation level of tall

7  

fescue seed lots and Rhizoctonia zeae seedling disease. Plant Dis 76: 911-914.

8   9  

Hameed A, Dilfuza E, Abd-Allah EF, Hashem A, Kumar A, Ahmad P. 2014. Salinity

10  

stress and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in plants. Pp. 139-159, In: Use of Microbes

11  

for the Alleviation of Soil Stresses, vol. 1, Springer, New York. DOI: 10.1007/978-1-

12  

4614-9466-9-7.

13   14  

Hamilton CE, Bauerle TL. 2012. A new currency for mutualism? Fungal endophytes alter

15  

antioxidant activity in hosts responding to drought. Fungal Divers 54: 39-49.

16   17  

Hamilton CE, Gundel PE, Helander M, Saikkonen K. 2012. Endophytic mediation of

18  

reactive oxygen species and antioxidant activity in plants: a review. Fungal Divers 54: 1-

19  

10.

20   21  

Hank JM, Bessler BL. 2004. Quorum sensing regulates type III secretion in Vibrio

22  

harveyi and Vibrio parahaemolyticus. J Bacteriol 186: 3794-37805.

23  

34     1  

Harding MW, Marques LLR, Howard RJ, Olson ME. 2009. Can filamentous fungi form

2  

biofilms? Tren Microbiol 17: 475-480.

3   4  

Heerklotz H, Seelig J. 2001. Detergent-like action of the antibiotic peptide surfactin on

5  

lipid membranes. Biophy J 81: 1547-1554.

6   7  

Hogan DA. 2006. Talking to themselves: Autoregulation and quorum sensing in fungi.

8  

Eukaryotic Cell 5: 613-619.

9   10  

Hornby JM, Jacobitz-kizzier SM, McNeel DJ, Jensen EC, Treves DS, Nickerson KW.

11  

2004. Inoculum size effect in dirmorphic fungi: extracellular control of yeast-mycelium

12  

dimorphism in Ceratocystis ulmi. Appl Environ Microbiol 70: 1356-1359.

13   14  

Hornby JM, Jensen EC, Lisec AD, Tasto JJ, Jahnke B, Showmaker R, Dussault P,

15  

Nickerson KW. 2001. Quorum sensing in the dimorphic fungus Candida albicans is

16  

mediated by farnesol. Appl Environ Microbiol 67: 2982-2992.

17   18  

Huang W-Y, Cai Y-Z, Xing J, Corke H, Sun M. 2007. A potential antioxidant resource:

19  

endophytic fungi from medicinal plants. Econ Bot 61: 14-30.

20   21  

James EK. 2000. Nitrogen fixation in endophytic and associative symbiosis. Field Crops

22  

Res 65: 197-209.

23  

35     1  

Jimenez R, Lopez-Sepulveda R, Romero M, Toral M, Cogolludo A, Perez-Vizcaino F,

2  

Duarte J. 2015. Quercetin and its metabolites inhibit the membrane NADPH oxidase

3  

activity in vascular smooth muscle cells from normotensive and spontaneously

4  

hypertensive rats. Food & Function 6: 409-414.

5   6  

Jourdan E, Henry G, Duby F., Dommes J, Barthelemy JP, Thonart P, Ongena M. 2009.

7  

Insights into the defense-related events occurring in plant cells following perception of

8  

surfactin-type lipopeptide from Bacillus subtilis. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 22: 456-

9  

468.

10   11  

Kalia VC. 2013. Quorum sensing inhibitors: an overview. Biotech Adv 31: 224-245.

12   13  

Kiraly KA, Pilinszky K, Bittsanszky A, Gyulai G, Komives T. 2013. Importance of

14  

ammonia detoxification by plants in phytoremediation and aquaponics. Pp 99-102, In:

15  

Proceedings 12th Alps-Adria Scientific Workshop, suppl. DOI: 10.12666/Novenyterm.

16  

62.2013.

17   18  

Kloepper JW, Ryu CM, Zhang S. 2004. Induced systemic resistance and promotion of

19  

plant growth by Bacillus spp. Phytopathology 94: 1259-1266.

20   21  

Koh C-L, Sam C-K, Yin W-F, Tan LY, Krishnan T, Chong YM, Chan K-G. 2013. Plant-

22  

derived natural products as sources of anti-quorum sensing compounds. Sensors 13:

23  

6217-6228.

36     1   2  

Koide RT, Mosse B. 2004. A history of research on arbuscular mycorrhizae. Mycorrhiza

3  

14: 145-163.

4   5  

Koike S, Iizuka T, Mizutani J. 1979. Determination of caffeic acid in the digestive juice

6  

of silkworm larvae and its antibacterial activity against the pathogenic Streptococcus

7  

faecalis AD-4. Agricultural and Biological Chemistry 43: 1727-1731.

8   9  

Lee H, Chang YC, Nardone G, Kwon-Chung KJ. 2007. TUP1 disruption in Cryptococcus

10  

neoformans uncovers a jpeptide-mediated density-dependent growth phenomenon that

11  

mimics quorum sensing. Mol Microbiol 64: 591-601.

12   13  

Lorek J, Poggeler S, Weige MR, Breves R, Bockmuhl DP. 2008. Influence of farnesol

14  

on the morphogenesis of Aspergillus niger. J Basic Microbiol 48: 99-103.

15   16  

Li C-J, Gao J-H, Nan Z-B. 2006. Interactions of Neotyphodium gansuense, Achnatherum

17  

inebrians, and plant pathogenic fungi. Mycol Res 111: 1220-1227.

18   19  

Lyons PC, Plattner RD, and Bacon CW. 1986. Occurrence of peptide and clavine ergot

20  

alkaloids in tall fescue. Science 232: 487-489.

21   22  

Malinowski MP, Belesky DP, Lewis GC. 2005. Abiotic stresses in endophytic grasses.

23  

Pp 187-199, In: Roberts C, West CP, Spiers DE (ed) Neotyphodium in Cool-Season

37     1  

Grasses Blackwell Publishing, Ames, Ohio.

2   3  

Mandal SM, Chakraborty D, Dey S. 2010. Phenolic acids act as signaling molecules in

4  

plant-microbe symbioses. Plant Signaling & Behavior 5: 359-368.

5   6  

McLean JC, Pierson LS, Fuqua C. 2004. A simple screening protocol for the

7  

identification of quorum signal antagonists. J Microbiol Methods 58: 351-360.

8   9   10  

Miller MB, Bassler BL. 2001. Qurorum sensing in bacteria. Annu Rev Microbiol 55: 165-199.

11   12  

Moy M, Belanger F, Duncan R, Freehof A, Leary C, Meyer W, Sullivan R, White JF.

13  

2000. Identification of epiphyllous mycelial nets on leaves of grasses infected by

14  

clavicipitaceous endophytes. Symbiosis 28: 291-302.

15   16  

Neill JC. 1941. The endophytes of Lolium and Festuca. New Zealand J. Sci. Technol. A

17  

23: 185-193.

18   19  

Ongena M, Adam A, Jourdan E, Paquot M, Joris B, Arpigny JL, Thonart P. 2007.

20  

Surfactin and fengycin lipopeptides of Bacillus subtilis as elicitors of induced systemic

21  

resistance in plants. Environ Microbiol 9: 1084-1090.

22   23  

Ongena M, Jacques P. 2008. Bacillus lipopeptides: versatile weapons for plant disease

38     1  

biocontrol. Trends Microbiol 16: 115-125.

2   3  

Pankievicz VCS, do Amaral FP, Santos KFDN, Agtuca B, Xu Y, Schueller MJ, Arisi

4  

ACM, Steffens MBR, de Souza EM, Pedrosa FO, Stacey G, Ferrieri RA. 2015. Robust

5  

biological nitrogen fixation in a model grass-bacterial association. The Plant Journal 81:

6  

907-919.

7   8  

Parsek MR, Greenberg EP. 2000. Acyl-homoserine lactone quorum sensing in Gram-

9  

negative bacteria: as signaling mechanisms involved in associations with higher

10  

organisms. Proc Nat Acad Sci USA 97: 8789-8793.

11   12  

Paungfoo-Lonhienne C, Rentsch D, Robatzek S, Webb R, Sagulenko E, Nasholm T,

13  

Schmidt S, Lonhienne T. 2010. Turning the table: plants consume microbes as a source

14  

of nutrients. PLOS One 5(7): e11915.

15  

Paungfoo-Lonhienne C, Schmidt S, Webb RI, Lonhienne T. 2013. Rhizophagy-a new

16  

dimension of plant-microbe interactions. Pages 1199-1207; In Frans J. de Bruijn (Ed.),

17  

Molecular Microbial Ecology of the Rhizosphere. Hoboken, NJ USA: Wiley-Blackwell.

18  

doi:10.1002/9781118297674.ch115

19  

Peng Y, Lin W, Cai W, Arora R. 2007. Overexpression of a Panax ginseng tonoplast

20  

aquaporin alters salt tolerance, drought tolerance, and cold acclimation ability in

21  

transgenic Arabidopsis plants. Planta 226: 729-740.

22  

39     1  

Persoh D. 2015. Plant-associated fungal communities in the light of metagenomics.

2  

Fungal Divers DOI 10.1007/s13225-015-0334-9.

3   4  

Petrini O. 1991. Fungal endophytes of tree leaves. Pp 179-197, In: Andrews JH, Hirano

5  

SS (ed) Microbial Ecology of Leaves, Springer-Verlag, New York.

6   7  

Porter  JK,  Bacon  CW,  Robbins  JD,  Himmelsbach  DS,  Higman  HC.  1977.    Indole  

8  

alkaloids  from  Balansia  epichloe  (Weese).    Journal  of  Agriculture  and  Food  

9  

Chemistry  25:    88-­‐93.  

10  

 

11  

Pratt  SC.  2005.  Quorum  sensing  by  encounter  rates  in  the  ant  Temnothorax  

12  

albipennis.    Behav  Ecol  2:  488–496,  DOI:10.1093/beheco/ari020.  

13   14  

Puente ME, Li CY, Bashan Y. 2009. Rock-degrading endophytic bacteria in cacti.

15  

Environ Exper Bot 66: 389-401.

16   17  

Raina S, Odell M, Keshavarz T. 2010. Raina S, Odell M, Keshavarz T. 2010. Quorum

18  

sensing as a method for improving sclerotiorin production in Penicillium sclerotiorum. J

19  

Biotechnol 148: 91-98.

20   21  

Rasmussen TB, Bjarnsholt T, Skindersoe ME, Hentzer M, Kistoffersen P, Kote M,

22  

Neilsen J, Eberl L, Givskov M. 2005a. Screening for quorum-sensing inhibitors (QSI)

23  

by use of a novel genetic system, the QSI selector. J Bact 187: 1799-1914.

40     1   2  

Rasmussen TB, Givskov M. 2006. Quorum sensing inhibitors: a bargain of effects.

3  

Microbiology 152: 895-904.

4   5  

Rasmussen TB, Skindesoe ME, Bjarnsholt T. Phipps RK Christen KB, Jensen PO,

6  

Andersen JB, Koch B, Larsen TO, Hentzer M. 2005b. Identify and effects of quorum-

7  

sensing inhibitors produced by Penicillium species. Microbiology 151: 1325-1340.

8   9   10  

Rengel Z, Marschner P. 2005. Nutrient availability and management in the rhizosphere: exploiting genotypic differences. New Phyt 168: 305-312.

11   12  

Rice SA, McDougald D, Kumar N, Kjelleberg S. 2005. The use of quorum sensing

13  

blockers as therapeutic agents for the control of biofilm-associated infection. Curr Opin

14  

Investig Drugs 6: 178-184.

15   16  

Richardson MD, Chapman GW, Hoveland CS, Bacon CW. 1992. Sugar alcohols in

17  

endophyte-infected tall fescue under drought. Crop Sci. 32: 1060-1061.

18   19  

Roca MG, Arlt J, Jeffree CE, Read ND. 2005. Cell biology of conidial anastomosis tubes

20  

in Neurospora crassa. Eukaryot Cell. 4: 911-919.

21   22  

Rodriguez RK, Henson J, van Volkenburgh E, Hoy M, Wright L, Beckwith F, Kim Y-O,

23  

Redman RS. 2008. Stress tolerance in plants via habitat-adapted symbiosis. ISME J.

41     1  

2(4): 404–416.

2   3  

Rodriguez RJ, White JF, Arnold AE, Redman R. 2009. Fungal endophytes: diversity and

4  

functional roles. New Phyt 182: 314-330.

5   6  

Rowen DD, Hunt MB and Gaynor DL. 1986. Peramine, a novel insect feeding deterrent

7  

from ryegrass infected with the endophyte Acremonium loliae. Chem Commun 1986:

8  

935-936.

9   10  

Saraf M, Jha CK, Patel D. 2014. The role of ACC deaminase producing PGPR in

11  

sustainable agriculture. Pp 365-385, In Maheshwari DK (ed) Use of Microbes for the

12  

Alleviation of Soil Stresses, vol. 1, Springer, New York DOI: 10.1007/978-1-4614-9466-

13  

9-7.

14   15  

Saravanakumar D, Samiyappan R. 2007. ACC deaminase from Pseudomonas fluorescens

16  

mediated saline resistance in groundnut (Arachis hypogea) plants. J Appl Microbiol 102:

17  

1283-1292.

18   19  

Schulz B, Boyle C. 2006. What are endophytes? Pp 1-10, In Scultz B, Boyle C, Sieber T

20  

(ed) Microbial Root Endophytes, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

21   22  

Schulz B, Boyle C, Draeger S, Römmert A-K, Krohn K. 2002. Endophytic fungi: a

23  

source of biologically active secondary metabolites. Mycol Res 106: 996-1004.

42     1   2  

Sharma SB, Sayyed RZ, Trivedi MH, Gobi TA. 2013. Phosphate solubilizing microbes:

3  

sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils.

4  

SpringerPlus 2: 587.

5   6  

Shank EA, Kolter R. 2009. New development in microbial interspecies signaling. Curr

7  

Opin Microbiol 12: 205-214.

8   9   10  

Shea JM, Poeta MD. 2006. Lipid signaling in pathogenic fungi. Curr Opin Microbiol 9: 352-358.

11   12  

Seeley  TD,  Visscher  PK.  2006.    Group  decision-­‐making  in  nest-­‐site  selection  by  

13  

honey  bees.    Apidologie    35:  101–116,  DOI:10.1051/apido:2004004

14   15  

Semighini CP, Hornby JM, Dumitru R, Nickerson KW, Murray N, Harris, SD. 2008.

16  

Inhibition of Fusarium graminearum growth and development by farnesol. FEMS

17  

Microbiol Let 279: 259-264.

18   19  

Shea JM, Poeta MD. 2006. Lipid signaling in pathogenic fungi. Curr Opin Microbiol 9:

20  

352-358.

21   22  

Siegel MR, Latch GCM, Bush LP, Fammin NF, Rowen DD, Tapper BA, Bacon CW,

23  

Johnson MC. 1991. Alkaloids and insecticidal activity of grasses infected with fungal

43     1  

endophytes. J Chem Ecol 16: 3301-3315.

2   3  

Snook ME, Mitchell T, Hinton DM, Bacon CW. 2009. Isolation and characterization of

4  

Leu7-surfactin from the endophytic bacterium Bacillus mojavensis RRC 101, a

5  

biocontrol agent for Fusarium verticillioides. J Agric Food Chem 57: 4287-4292.

6   7  

Spatafora JW, Sung GH, Sung JM, Hywel-Jones N, White JF. 2007. Phylogenetic

8  

evidence for an animal pathogen origin of ergot and other grass endophytes. Molecular

9  

Ecology 16: 1701-1711.

10   11  

Spratt DA, Daglia M, Papetti A, Stauder M, O’Donnell D. 2012. Evaluation of plant and

12  

fungal extracts for their potential anti-gingivitis and anti-caries activity. J Biomedicine

13  

and Biotechnology, DOI: 10.1155/2012/510198.

14   15  

Stone JK, Bacon CW, White JW. 2000. An overview of endophytic microbes:

16  

endophytism defined. Pp 3-30, In: Bacon CW, White JF (ed) Microbial Endophytes

17  

Marcel-Dekker, New York.

18   19  

Tadych M, Vorsa N, Wang Y, Bergen MS, Johnson-Cicalese J, Polashock JJ, White JF.

20  

2015. Interactions between cranberries and fungi: the proposed function of organic acids

21  

in virulence suppression of fruit rot fungi. Front. Microbiol. 6:835. doi:

22  

10.3389/fmicb.2015.00835

23  

44     1  

Tadych M, White JF. 2007. Ecology of epiphyllous stages of endophytes and

2  

implications for horizontal dissemination. Proc 6th Inter Symp Fungal Endophytes

3  

Grasses, New Zealand Grass Association – Grassland Research and Practice Series 13:

4  

157-161.

5   6  

Tanaka K, Ishihara A, Nakajima H. 2014. Isolation of anteiso-C17, iso-C17, iso-C16, and

7  

iso-C15 bacillomycin D from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SD-32 and their antifungal

8  

activities against plant pathogens. J Agric Food Chem 62: 1469-1476.

9   10  

Thomas P, Sekhar AC. 2014. Live cell imaging reveals extensive intracellular

11  

cytoplasmic colonization of banana by normally non-cultivable endophytic bacteria.

12  

AOB Plants 6:plu002. DOI:10.193/aobpla/plu002.

13   14  

Torres MS, White JF. 2009. Free-living and saprotrophs to plant endophytes. Pp 422-

15  

430, In: Schaechter M (ed) Encyclopedia of Microbiology, 3rd edn Elsevier.

16   17  

Uroz S, Dessaux Y, Oger P. 2009. Quorum sensing and quorum quenching: the yin and

18  

yang of bacterial communication. Chembiochem 10: 205-216.

19   20  

Visick KL, Fuqua C. 2005. Decoding microbial chatter: cell-cell communication in

21  

bacteria. J Bacteriol 187: 5507-5519.

22   23  

von Bodman SB, Bauer WD, Coplin DL. 2003. Quorum sensing in plant pathogenic

45     1  

bacteria. Annu Rev Phytopathol 41: 455-482.

2   3  

Wall LG. 2000. The actinorhizal symbiosis. J Plant Growth Regul 19: 167-182.

4   5  

Waller F, Achatz B, Baltruschat H, Fodor J, Becker K, Fischer M, Kogel K-H. 2005. The

6  

endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica reprograms barley to salt-stress tolerance,

7  

disease resistance, and higher yield. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 102: 13386–13391.

8  

DOI:10.1073/pnas.0504423102lish

9   10  

Westwater C, Balish E, Schofield DA. 2005. Candida albicans-conditioned medium

11  

protects yeast cells from oxidative stress: a possible link between quorum sensing and

12  

oxidative stress resistance. Eukaryotic Cell 4: 1654-1661.

13   14  

White JF, Bacon CW, Hywel-Jones NL, and Spatafora JW (ed). 2003. Clavicipitalean

15  

Fungi. Marcel Dekker, Inc. NY.

16   17  

White JF, Chen Q, Torres MS, Mattera R, Irizarry I, Tadych M, Bergen M. 2015.

18  

Collaboration between grass seedlings and rhizobacteria to scavenge organic nitrogen in

19  

soils. AoB Plants 01/2015. DOI: 10.1093/aobpla/plu093

20   21  

White JF, Torres MS. 2009. Is plant endophyte-mediated defensive mutualism the result

22  

of oxidative stress protection? Physiol Plant 138(4): 440-446. DOI: 10.1111/j.1399-

23  

3054.2009.01332

46     1   2  

White JF, Torres MS, Somu MP, Johnson H, Irizarry I, Chen Q, Zhang N, Walsh E,

3  

Tadych M, Bergen MS. 2014a. Hydrogen peroxide staining to visualize intracellular

4  

bacterial infections of seedling root cells. Microsc Res Tech 77: 566-573.

5   6  

White JF, Torres MS, Johnson H, Irizarry I. 2014b. A functional view of plant

7  

microbiomes: Endosymbiotic systems that enhance plant growth and survival. Pp 425-

8  

440, In: Verma VC, Gange AC (ed) Advances in Endophytic Research, Springer Verlag,

9  

Heidelberg.

10   11  

White JF, Torres MS, Sullivan RF, Jabbour RE, Chen Q, Tadych M, Irizarry I, Bergen

12  

MS, Havkin-Frenkel D, Belanger FC. 2014c. Occurrence of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens

13  

as a systemic endophyte of vanilla orchids. Microsc Res Tech 77: 874-885.

14  

DOI: 10.1002/jemt.22410.

15   16  

White JF, Crawford H, Torres MS, Mattera R, Irizarry I, Bergen MS. 2012. A proposed

17  

mechanism for nitrogen acquisition by grass seedlings through oxidation of symbiotic

18  

bacteria. Symbiosis 57: 61-171. DOI:10.1007/s13199-012-01.

19   20  

Wiewióra B, Zurek G, Zurek M. 2015. Endophyte-mediated disease resistance in wild

21  

populations of perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne). Fungal Ecol 15: 1-8.

22   23  

Zambell CB, White JF. 2014. In the forest vine Smilax rotundifolia, fungal epiphytes

47     1  

show site-wide spatial correlation, while endophytes show evidence of niche partitioning.

2  

Fungal Divers12/2014. DOI 10.1007/s13225-014-0316-3.

3   4  

Zarraonaindia I, Owens S, Welsenhorn P, West K, Hampton-Marcell J, Lax S, Bokulich

5  

N, Mills D, Martin G, Taghavi S, van der Lelie D, Gilbert J. 2015. The soil microbiome

6  

influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio 6(2): e02527-14.

7   8