4.6 Article

Flavonoids repress the production of antifungal 2,4-DAPG but potentially facilitate root colonization of the rhizobacterium Pseudomonas fluorescens

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 22, 期 12, 页码 5073-5089

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/1462-2920.15052

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [31770535, 31971422]
  2. Natural Science Foundation of Gansu Province [17JR5RA208]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities from Lanzhou University [lzujbky-2017-151]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In the well-known legume-rhizobia symbiosis, flavonoids released by legume roots induce expression of the Nod factors and trigger early plant responses involved in root nodulation. However, it remains largely unknown how the plant-derived flavonoids influence the physiology of non-symbiotic beneficial rhizobacteria. In this work, we demonstrated that the flavonoids apigenin and/or phloretin enhanced the swarming motility and production of cellulose and curli in Pseudomonas fluorescens 2P24, both traits of which are essential for root colonization. Using a label-free quantitative proteomics approach, we showed that apigenin and phloretin significantly reduced the biosynthesis of the antifungal metabolite 2,4-DAPG and further identified a novel flavonoid-sensing TetR regulator PhlH, which was shown to modulate 2,4-DAPG production by regulating the expression of 2,4-DAPG hydrolase PhlG. Although having similar structures, apigenin and phloretin could also influence different physiological characteristics of P. fluorescens 2P24, with apigenin decreasing the biofilm formation and phloretin inducing expression of proteins involved in the denitrification and arginine fermentation processes. Taken together, our results suggest that plant-derived flavonoids could be sensed by the TetR regulator PhlH in P. fluorescens 2P24 and acts as important signalling molecules that strengthen mutually beneficial interactions between plants and non-symbiotic beneficial rhizobacteria.

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

4.6
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