4.6 Article

Litterbox-A gnotobiotic Zeolite-Clay System to Investigate Arabidopsis-Microbe Interactions

期刊

MICROORGANISMS
卷 8, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/microorganisms8040464

关键词

gnotobiota; microbe-microbe interactions; phyllosphere; plant immunity; plant microbiota; plant-microbe interactions; rhizosphere; single-cell; synthetic community

资金

  1. Marsden Fast Start Fund of the Royal Society of New Zealand Te Aparangi [17-UOC-057]
  2. UC doctoral scholarship
  3. NZIDRS doctoral scholarship

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plants are colonised by millions of microorganisms representing thousands of species with varying effects on plant growth and health. The microbial communities found on plants are compositionally consistent and their overall positive effect on the plant is well known. However, the effects of individual microbiota members on plant hosts and vice versa, as well as the underlying mechanisms, remain largely unknown. Here, we describe Litterbox, a highly controlled system to investigate plant-microbe interactions. Plants were grown gnotobiotically, otherwise sterile, on zeolite-clay, a soil replacement that retains enough moisture to avoid subsequent watering. Litterbox-grown plants resemble greenhouse-grown plants more closely than agar-grown plants and exhibit lower leaf epiphyte densities (10(6) cfu/g), reflecting natural conditions. A polydimethylsiloxane (PDMS) sheet was used to cover the zeolite, significantly lowering the bacterial load in the zeolite and rhizosphere. This reduced the likelihood of potential systemic responses in leaves induced by microbial rhizosphere colonisation. We present results of example experiments studying the transcriptional responses of leaves to defined microbiota members and the spatial distribution of bacteria on leaves. We anticipate that this versatile and affordable plant growth system will promote microbiota research and help in elucidating plant-microbe interactions and their underlying mechanisms.

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