4.4 Article

Role of Maize Root Exudates in Promotion of Colonization of Bacillus velezensis Strain S3-1 in Rhizosphere Soil and Root Tissue

期刊

CURRENT MICROBIOLOGY
卷 76, 期 7, 页码 855-862

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00284-019-01699-4

关键词

-

资金

  1. Shanghai Municipal Science and Technology Commission [16391902100]
  2. Foundation of Key Laboratory of Urban Agriculture [UA201705]
  3. Ministry of Agriculture of the People's Republic of China [17DZ2252700]
  4. Shanghai Engineering and Technical Research Center of Plant Germplasm Resources [17DZ2252700]
  5. National Key R&D Program of China [2016YFC0502702]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Bacillus velezensis strain S3-1 has a broad range of hosts and is used as a biocontrol agent and biofertilizer. However, the interaction of maize root exudates and colonization of the strain S3-1 has not yet been investigated. In our study, strain S3-1 effectively colonized both rhizosphere soil and root tissue. Collected maize root exudates significantly induced the chemotaxis, cluster movement, and biofilm formation of strain S3-1, showing increases of 1.43, 1.6, and 2.08 times, respectively, compared with the control. In addition, the components of root exudates (organic acids: citric acid, malic acid, and oxalic acid; amino acids: glycine, proline and phenylalanine; sugars: glucose, fructose, and sucrose) were tested. Each of these compounds could induce chemotactic response, swarming motility, and biofilm formation significantly. The strongest chemotactic response and swarming motility were found when malic acid was applied, but maximal ability of biofilm formation was stimulated by proline. Furthermore, we found that these compounds of root exudates stimulated the population of S3-1 adhering to the maize root surface, especially in the presence of malic acid. These results indicate that maize root exudates play an important role in the colonization of S3-1, and provide a deeper understanding of the interaction between plants and microorganisms.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据