Plants form mutually beneficial or antagonistic interactions with organisms from various kingdoms of life. A clear understanding of the underlying mechanisms is fundamental for crop protection and environmental preservation. Although historically overlooked, the role of plant bioelectricity in initiating and maintaining biotic interactions is recently emerging as an exciting research topic. In this review, we summarize the state-of-the-art regarding the role of plant bioelectricity in biotic interactions focusing on both shoots and roots. We describe how root bioelectricity mediates interactions with pathogens and symbionts from different phyla, and the role played by flower electric fields in pollination.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeerlingD.The Emerald Planet: How Plants Changed Earth's History. The University of Chicago Press: New York, NY, USA; 2008.
2.
GhantasalaS, Roy ChoudhuryS. Nod factor perception: An integrative view of molecular communication during legume symbiosis. Plant Mol Biol, 2022; 110:485–509; doi: 10.1007/s11103-022-01307-3
3.
DelauxPM, SchornackS. Plant evolution driven by interactions with symbiotic and pathogenic microbes. Science, 2021; 371(6531):eaba6605; doi: 10.1126/science.aba6605
4.
ClarkeD, WhitneyHM, SuttonG, et al.Electric fields by bumblebees. Environment, 2013;(April):66–69.
5.
CameronJN, CarlileMJ. Fatty acids, aldehydes and alcohols as attractants for zoospores of Phytophthora palmivora. Nature, 1978; 271(5644):448–449; doi: 10.1038/271448a0
6.
ShabalaS, WhiteRG, DjordjevicMA, et al.Root-to-shoot signalling: Integration of diverse molecules, pathways and functions. Funct Plant Biol, 2016; 43(2):87–104; doi: 10.1071/FP15252
7.
TylerSEB.Nature's electric potential: A systematic review of the role of bioelectricity in wound healing and regenerative processes in animals, humans, and plants. Front Physiol, 2017; 8:1–18; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2017.00627
DineurE.Note on the sensitivity of leukocytes to electricity [in French]. Bull Seances Soc Belge Microsc Brux, 1892; 18:113–118.
10.
TroutmanJT, WillsWH. Electrotaxis of Phytophthora parasitica zoospores and its possible role in infection of tobacco by the fungus. Phytopathology, 1964; 54:225–228.
11.
GowNAR.Relationship between growth and the electrical current of fungal hyphae. Biol Bull, 1989; 176(2S):31–35; doi: 10.2307/1541645
SlaymanCL, SlaymanCW. Measurement of membrane potentials in Neurospora. Science, 1962; 136(3519):876–877; doi: 10.1126/science.136.3519.876
14.
MillerAL, ShandE, GowNAR. Ion currents associated with root tips, emerging laterals and induced wound sites in Nicotians tabacum: Spatial relationship proposed between resulting electrical fields and phytophthoran zoospore infection. Plant Cell Environ, 1988; 11(1):21–25; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1988.tb01772.x
15.
PotapovaTV, AslanidiKB, BelozerskayaTA, et al.Transcellular ionic currents studied by intracellular potential recordings in Neurospora crassa hyphae Transfer of energy from proximal to apical cells. FEBS Lett, 1988; 241(1–2):173–176; doi: 10.1016/0014-5793(88)81054-8
16.
CorbetSA, BeamentJ, EisikowithchD. Are electrostatic forces involved in pollen transfer?. Plant Cell Environ, 1982; 5(2):125–129; doi: 10.1111/1365-3040.ep11571488
17.
JaffeLF, NuccitelliR. An ultrasensitive vibrating probe for measuring steady extracellular currents. J Cell Biol, 1974; 63(2):614–628; doi: 10.1083/jcb.63.2.614
18.
PandolfiC, MugnaiS, AzzarelloE, et al.The vibrating probe technique in the study of root physiology under stress. In: Measuring Roots. 2012; pp. 67–81.
19.
NewmanIA.Ion transport in roots: Measurement of fluxes using ion-selective microelectrodes to characterize transporter function. Plant Cell Environ, 2001; 24(1):1–14; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2001.00661.x
20.
MillerAL, GowNAR. Correlation between root-generated ionic currents, pH, fusicoccin, indoleacetic acid, and growth of the primary root of Zea mays. Plant Physiol, 1989; 89(4):1198–1206; doi: 10.1104/pp.89.4.1198
21.
IwabuchiA, YanoM, ShimizuH. Development of extracellular electric pattern around Lepidiumroots: Its possible role in root growth and gravitropism. Protoplasma, 1989; 148(2–3):94–100.
22.
MasiE, CiszakM, StefanoG, et al.Spatiotemporal dynamics of the electrical network activity in the root apex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2009; 106(10):4048–4053; doi: 10.1073/pnas.0804640106
23.
MillerAL, GowNAR. Correlation between profile of ion-current circulation and root development. Physiol Plant, 1989; 75(1):102–108; doi: 10.1111/j.1399-3054.1989.tb02070.x
24.
RathoreKS, HotaryKB, RobinsonKR. A two-dimensional vibrating probe study of currents around lateral roots of Raphanus sativus developing in culture. Plant Physiol, 1990; 92(2):543–546; doi: 10.1104/pp.92.2.543
25.
CollingsDA, WhiteRG, OverallRL. Ionic current changes associated with the gravity-induced bending response in roots of Zea mays L. Plant Physiol, 1992; 100(3):1417–1426; doi: 10.1104/pp.100.3.1417
26.
Van WestP, MorrisBM, ReidB, et al.Oomycete plant pathogens use electric fields to target roots. Mol Plant Microbe Interact, 2002; 15(8):790–798; doi: 10.1094/MPMI.2002.15.8.790
27.
HushJM, NewmanIA, OverallRL. Utilization of the vibrating probe and ion-selective microelectrode techniques to investigate electrophysiological responses to wounding in pea roots. J Exp Bot, 1992; 43(9):1251–1257; doi: 10.1093/jxb/43.9.1251
28.
FunkRHW.Endogenous electric fields as guiding cue for cell migration. Front Physiol, 2015; 6:1–8; doi: 10.3389/fphys.2015.00143
29.
SalvalaioM, OliverN, TiknazD, et al.Root electrotropism in Arabidopsis does not depend on auxin distribution but requires cytokinin biosynthesis. Plant Physiol, 2022; 188(3):1604–1616; doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiab587
30.
WolvertonC, MullenJL, IshikawaH, et al.Two distinct regions of response drive differential growth in Vigna root electrotropism. Plant Cell Environ, 2000; 23(11):1275–1280; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.2000.00629.x
31.
WawreckiW, Zagórska-MarekB. Influence of a weak DC electric field on root meristem architecture. Ann Bot, 2007; 100(4):791–796; doi: 10.1093/aob/mcm164
32.
KralN, Hanna OugolnikovaA, SenaG. Externally imposed electric field enhances plant root tip regeneration. Regeneration, 2016; 3(3):156–167; doi: 10.1002/reg2.59
33.
Acosta-SantoyoG, HerradaRA, De FolterS, et al.Stimulation of the germination and growth of different plant species using an electric field treatment with IrO2-Ta2O5|Ti electrodes. J Chem Technol Biotechnol, 2018; 93(5):1488–1494; doi: 10.1002/jctb.5517
RyanPR, ShaffIE, KochianLV. Aluminum Toxicity in Roots' Correlation among Ionic Currents, Ion Fluxes, and Root Elongation in Aluminum-Sensitive and Aluminum-Tolerant Wheat Cultivars. Plant Physiol, 1992; 99:1193–1200.
36.
PiñerosMA, ShaffJE, KochianLV. Development, characterization, and application of a cadmium-selective microelectrode for the measurement of cadmium fluxes in roots of Thlaspi species and wheat. Plant Physiol, 1998; 116(4):1393–1401; doi: 10.1104/pp.116.4.1393
37.
PlassardC, MeslemM, SoucheG, et al.Localization and quantification of net fluxes of H+ along maize roots by combined use of pH-indicator dye videodensitometry and H+-selective microelectrodes. Plant Soil, 1999; 211(1):29–39; doi: 10.1023/A:1004560208777
38.
MancusoS, MarrasAM, MagnusV, et al.Noninvasive and continuous recordings of auxin fluxes in intact root apex with a carbon nanotube-modified and self-referencing microelectrode. Anal Biochem, 2005; 341(2):344–351; doi: 10.1016/j.ab.2005.03.054
39.
TokoK, YamafujiK. Spontaneous formation of the spatial pattern of electric potential in biological systems. Ferroelectrics, 1988; 86(1):269–279; doi: 10.1080/00150198808227019
40.
EnglandSJ, RobertD. The ecology of electricity and electroreception. Biol Rev, 2022; 97(1):383–413; doi: 10.1111/brv.12804
41.
MillerAL, SmithGN, RavenJA, et al.Ion currents and the nitrogen status of roots of Hordeum vulgare and non-nodulated Trifolium repens. Plant Cell Environ, 1991; 14(6):559–567; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1991.tb01526.x
42.
WatanabeY, TakeuchiS, AshisadaM, et al.Potential distribution and ionic concentration at the bean root surface of the growing tip and lateral root emerging points. Plant Cell Physiol, 1995; 36(4):691–698; doi: 10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a078810
43.
TaylorAR, BloomAJ. Ammonium, nitrate, and proton fluxes along the maize root. Plant Cell Environ, 1998; 21(12):1255–1263; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-3040.1998.00357.x
44.
MawMG.Some biological effects of atmospheric electricity. Proc Entomol, 1962;(92):33–37.
45.
RycroftMJ, IsraelssonS, PriceC. The global atmospheric electric circuit, solar activity and climate change. J Atmospheric Sol-Terr Phys, 2000; 62(17–18):1563–1576; doi: 10.1016/S1364-6826(00)00112-7
46.
GoraEM, YanoviakSP. Electrical properties of temperate forest trees: A review and quantitative comparison with vines. Can J Forest Res n.d.;(45):236–245.
47.
BowkerGE, CrenshawHC. Electrostatic forces in wind-pollination-Part 2: Simulations of pollen capture. Atmos Environ, 2007; 41(8):1596–1603; doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.048
48.
BowkerGE, CrenshawHC. Electrostatic forces in wind-pollination-Part 1: Measurement of the electrostatic charge on pollen. Atmos Environ, 2007; 41(8):1587–1595; doi: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2006.10.047
49.
VercoulenPHW, RoosRA, MarijnissenJCM, et al.Measuring electric charge on pollen. J Aerosol Sci, 1992; 23(Suppl. 1):377–380; doi: 10.1016/0021-8502(92)90428-X
50.
MontgomeryC, KohK, RobertD. Measurement of electric charges on foraging bumblebees (Bombus terrestris). J Phys Conf Ser, 2019; 1322(1):012002; doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1322/1/012002
51.
VakninY, Gan-MorS, BecharA, et al.The role of electrostatic forces pollination. Plant Syst Evol, 2000; 222(1–4):133–142; doi: 10.1007/BF00984099
52.
ClarkeD, MorleyE, RobertD. The bee, the flower, and the electric field: Electric ecology and aerial electroreception. J Comp Physiol A Neuroethol Sens Neural Behav Physiol, 2017; 203(9):737–748; doi: 10.1007/s00359-017-1176-6
53.
BadgerM, Ortega-JimenezVM, Von RabenauL, et al.Electrostatic charge on flying hummingbirds and its potential role in pollination. PLoS One, 2015; 10(9):1–11; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0138003
54.
SuttonGP, ClarkeD, MorleyEL, et al.Mechanosensory hairs in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) detect weak electric fields. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 2016; 113(26):7261–7265; doi: 10.1073/pnas.1601624113
55.
KohKL, MontgomeryC, ClarkeD, et al.Bumblebee hair motion in electric fields. J Phys Conf Ser, 2019; 1322(1):012001; doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/1322/1/012001
56.
KohK, RobertD. Bumblebee hairs as electric and air motion sensors: Theoretical analysis of an isolated hair. J R Soc Interface, 2020; 17(168):20200146; doi: 10.1098/rsif.2020.0146
57.
KhanSA, KhanKA, KubikS, et al.Electric field detection as floral cue in hoverfly pollination. Sci Rep, 2021; 11(1):1–9; doi: 10.1038/s41598-021-98371-4
58.
BirdA.The attractiveness of roots to the plant parasitic nematodes. Meloidogyne Javanica M Hapla Nematol, 1959;(4):322–335.
KhewKL.Electrotactic response of zoospores of seven species of Phytophthora. Phytopathology, 1974; 64(4):500; doi: 10.1094/phyto-64-500
61.
MorrisBM, GowNAR. Mechanism of electrotaxis of zoospores of phytopathogenic fungi. Phytopathology, 1993; 83:877–882.
62.
MorattoE, RotheryS, BozkurtTO, et al.Enhanced germination and electrotactic behaviour of Phytophthora palmivora zoospores in weak electric fields. bioRxiv, 2022.
63.
KhewKL.Chemotactic response of zoospores of five species of Phytophthora. Phytopathology, 1973; 63(12):1511; doi: 10.1094/phyto-63-1511
64.
ShepherdSJ, Van WestP, GowNAR. Proteomic analysis of asexual development of Phytophthora palmivora. Mycol Res, 2003; 107(4):395–400; doi: 10.1017/S0953756203007561
65.
KatsuraK, MasagoH, MiyataY. Movements of zoospores of Phytophthora capsici. Jpn J Phytopathol, 1966; 32(4):215–221.
66.
HoHH, HickmanCJ. Factors governing zoospore responses of Phytophthora megasperma var. sojae to plant roots. Can J Bot, 1967; 45(11):1983–1994.
67.
SarkarD, SunY, TayaguiA, et al.Microfluidic platform to study electric field based root targeting by pathogenic zoospores. IEEE Symp Mass Storage Syst Technol, 2022;(January):884–887; doi: 10.1109/MEMS51670.2022.9699559
68.
MorrisBM, ReidB, GowNAR. Electrotaxis of zoospores of Phytophthora palmivora at physiologically relevant field strengths. Plant Cell Environ, 1992; 15(6):645–653; doi: 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1992.tb01006.x
69.
ShanmugamMM.Galvanotaxis of Caenorhabditis elegans: Current understanding and its application in improving research. Biol Eng Med, 2017; 2(1):1–5; doi: 10.15761/bem.1000111
70.
RezaiP, SiddiquiA, SelvaganapathyPR, et al.Electrotaxis of Caenorhabditis elegans in a microfluidic environment. Lab Chip, 2010; 10(2):220–226; doi: 10.1039/b917486a
71.
ChrismanSD, WaiteCB, ScovilleAG, et al.C. elegans demonstrates distinct behaviors within a fixed and uniform electric field. PLoS One, 2016; 11(3):e0151320; doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0151320
72.
GabelCV, GabelH, PavlichinD, et al.Neural circuits mediate electrosensory behavior in Caenorhabditis elegans. J Neurosci, 2007; 27(28):7586–7596; doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0775-07.2007
73.
YoussefK, ArchontaD, KubiseskiT, et al.Parallel-channel electrotaxis and neuron screening of Caenorhabditis elegans. Micromachines, 2020; 11(8):1–11; doi: 10.3390/MI11080756
74.
SchüβlerA, SchwarzottD, WalkerC. A new fungal phylum, the Glomeromycota: Phylogeny and evolution. Mycol Res, 2001; 105(12):1413–1421.
75.
ChongP, ErableB, BergelA. How bacteria use electric fields to reach surfaces. Biofilm, 2021; 3:100048; doi: 10.1016/j.bioflm.2021.100048
76.
BrandA, ShanksS, DuncanVMS, et al.Hyphal orientation of Candida albicans is regulated by a calcium-dependent mechanism. Curr Biol, 2007; 17(4):347–352; doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2006.12.043
77.
OramJ, JeukenLJC. Shewanella oneidensis MR-1 electron acceptor taxis and the perception of electrodes poised at oxidative potentials. Curr Opin Electrochem, 2017; 5(1):99–105; doi: 10.1016/j.coelec.2017.07.013
78.
ShiW, StockerBAD, AdlerJ. Effect of the surface composition of motile Escherichia coli and motile Salmonella species on the direction of galvanotaxis. J Bacteriol, 1996; 178(4):1113–1119; doi: 10.1128/jb.178.4.1113-1119.1996
79.
HarmsH, WickLY. Dispersing pollutant-degrading bacteria in contaminated soil without touching it. Eng Life Sci, 2006; 6(3):252–260; doi: 10.1002/elsc.200620122
80.
MaJ, ZhangQ, ChenF, et al.Remediation of resins-contaminated soil by the combination of electrokinetic and bioremediation processes. Environ Pollut, 2020; 260:114047; doi: 10.1016/j.envpol.2020.114047
81.
ZhuM, FanJ, ZhangM, et al.Current intensities altered the performance and microbial community structure of a bio-electrochemical system. Chemosphere, 2021; 265:129069; doi: 10.1016/j.chemosphere.2020.129069
82.
KurkdjianA, BouteauF, PennarunAM, et al.Ion currents involved in early Nod factor response in Medicago sativa root hairs: A discontinuous single-electrode voltage-clamp study. Plant J, 2000; 22(1):9–17; doi: 10.1046/j.1365-313X.2000.00714.x
83.
KiersET, DuhamelM, BeesettyY, et al.Reciprocal rewards stabilize cooperation in the mycorrhizal symbiosis. Science, 2011; 333(August):880–883.
84.
LandwehrM, HildebrandtU, WildeP, et al.The arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus geosporum in European saline, sodic and gypsum soils. Mycorrhiza, 2002; 12(4):199–211; doi: 10.1007/s00572-002-0172-y
85.
FüzyA, BiróB, TóthT. Effect of saline soil parameters on endomycorrhizal colonisation of dominant halophytes in four Hungarian sites. Span J Agric Res, 2010; 8(S1):144; doi: 10.5424/sjar/201008s1-1234
86.
ZhangW, CaoJ, ZhangS, et al.Effect of earthworms and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi on the microbial community and maize growth under salt stress. Appl Soil Ecol, 2016; 107:214–223; doi: 10.1016/j.apsoil.2016.06.005
87.
CrombieT, GowNAR, GoodayGW. Influence of applied electrical fields on yeast and hyphal growth of Candida albicans. J Gen Microbiol, 1990; 136(2):311–317; doi: 10.1099/00221287-136-2-311
88.
PotapovaTV.Structural and functional organization of growing tips of Neurospora crassa hyphae. Biochem Mosc, 2014; 79(7):593–607; doi: 10.1134/S0006297914070025
89.
KuoHC, HuiS, ChoiJ, et al.Secret lifestyles of Neurospora crassa. Sci Rep, 2014; 4:1–6; doi: 10.1038/srep05135
90.
AylingSM, SmithSE, SmithFA. Transmembrane electric potential difference of germ tubes of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi responds to external stimuli. New Phytol, 2000; 147(3):631–639; doi: 10.1046/j.1469-8137.2000.00723.x
LiS, StoneHA, MurphyCT. A microfluidic device and automatic counting system for the study of C. elegans reproductive aging. Lab Chip, 2015; 15(2):524–531; doi: 10.1039/c4lc01028k
93.
SunYS.Studying electrotaxis in microfluidic devices. Sens Switz, 2017; 17(9):2048; doi: 10.3390/s17092048
