4.6 Article

Effects of glucosinolates and flavonoids on colonization of the roots of Brassica napus by Azorhizobium caulinodans ORS571

期刊

APPLIED AND ENVIRONMENTAL MICROBIOLOGY
卷 66, 期 5, 页码 2185-2191

出版社

AMER SOC MICROBIOLOGY
DOI: 10.1128/AEM.66.5.2185-2191.2000

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Plants of Brassica napus were assessed quantitatively for their susceptibility to lateral root crack colonization by Azorhizobium caulinodans ORS571(pXLGD4) (a rhizobial strain carrying the lacZ reporter gene) and for the concentration of glucosinolates in their roots by high-pressure liquid chromatography (HPLC). High- and low glucosinolate-seed (HGS and LGS) varieties exhibited a relatively low and high percentage of colonized lateral roots, respectively. HPLC showed that roots of HGS plants contained a higher concentration of glucosinolates than roots of LGS plants. One LGS variety showing fewer colonized lateral roots than other LGS varieties contained a higher concentration of glucosinolates than other LGS plants. Inoculated HGS plants treated with the flavonoid naringenin showed significantly more colonization than untreated HGS plants. This increase was not mediated by a naringenin-induced lowering of the glucosinolate content of HGS plant roots, nor did naringenin induce bacterial resistance to glucosinolates or increase the growth of bacteria. The erucic acid content of seed did not appear to influence colonization by azorhizobia. Frequently, leaf assays are used to study glucosinolates and plant defense; this study provides data on glucosinolates and bacterial colonization in roots and describes a bacterial reporter gene assay tailored easily to the study of ecologically important phytochemicals that influence bacterial colonization. These data also form a basis for future assessments of the benefits to oilseed rape plants of interaction with plant growth-promoting bacteria, especially diazotrophic bacteria potentially able to extend the benefits of nitrogen fixation to nonlegumes.

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