Colonization of certain probiotic microbes as a biofilm on plant roots induces beneficial responses that boost plant health. The surface colonization, biofilm formation, and production of plant-beneficial metabolites by probiotics on plant roots may be influenced by agricultural formulations containing nanoparticles applied as pesticides or fertilizers. A model system of wheat grown in sand is used to study seedling responses to CuO and ZnO NPs, applied at concentrations 300 and 500 mg metal/kg growth medium respectively. These NPs did not impair formation of layered biofilms on wheat seedling roots by Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 (PcO6), a probiotic inducing drought tolerance. Plant growth with 300 mg/kg CuO NPs alone lowered shoot water content by 12% and changed the mechanical properties of the tissue compared with control plants. After a 6-d drought, shoots of 13-d seedlings were visibly more erect when seedlings were grown with Cu from NPs or ions than plants grown without Cu amendment. Growth of PcO6-colonized plants with CuO NPs induced lignification of the sclerenchyma in shoots, as well as increased nitric oxide (NO) accumulations in the wheat root, a metabolite associated with cell signaling in drought tolerance. These studies suggest that formulations containing selected NPs may interact positively with plant probiotics in promoting robust plant tissues and drought tolerance.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
KimYC, GlickBR, BashanY, et al.Enhancement of plant drought tolerance by microbes. In: ArocaR (ed), Plant Responses to Drought Stress. 2012, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
2.
Coleman-DerrD, TringeSG. Building the crops of tomorrow: Advantages of symbiont-based approaches to improving abiotic stress tolerance. Front Microbiol, 2014; 5:283. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2014.00283.
3.
KosovaK, VitamvasP, UrbanMO, et al.Breeding for enhanced drought resistance in barley and wheat–drought-associated traits, genetic resources and their potential utilization in breeding programmes. Czech J Genet Plant Breed, 2014; 50(4):247–261.
4.
MwadzingeniL, ShimelisH, TesfayS, et al.Screening of bread wheat genotypes for drought tolerance using phenotypic and proline analyses. Front Plant Sci, 2016; 7:1276. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2016.01276.
5.
LeeSC, LuanS. ABA signal transduction pathway at the crossroad of biotic and abiotic stress response. Plant Cell Environ, 2012; 35:53–60.
6.
LiaoWB, HuangGB, YuJH et al. Nitric oxide and hydrogen peroxide alleviate drought stress in marigold explants and promote its adventitious root development. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2012; 58:6–15.
7.
WangH, YangL, LiY, et al.Involvement of ABA- and H2O2-dependent cytosolic glucose-6- phosphate dehydrogenase in maintaining redox homeostasis in soybean roots under drought stress. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2016; 107:126e136.
8.
LiN, ZhangS, LiangY, et al.Label-free quantitative proteomic analysis of drought stress-responsive late embryogenesis abundant proteins in the seedling leaves of two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) genotypes. J Proteomics, 2018; 172:122–142.
9.
TajiT, OhsumiC, LuchiS, et al.Important roles of drought- and cold-inducible genes for galactinol synthase in stress tolerance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant J, 2002; 29:417–426.
10.
DimkpaCO. Can nanotechnology deliver the promised benefits without negatively impacting soil microbial life?. J Basic Microbiol, 2014; 54:889–904.
11.
SekhonBS. Nanotechnology in agri-food production: An overview. Nanotechnol Sci Appl, 2014; 7:31–53.
12.
KhanMN, MobinM, AbbasZK, et al.Role of nanomaterials in plants under challenging environments. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2017; 110:194–209. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.05.038
13.
DimkpaCO, BindrabanPS, FugiceJ, et al.Composite micronutrient nanoparticles and salts decrease drought stress in soybean. Agron Sustain Devel, 2017; 37:51. dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2016.05.038
14.
TaranN, StorozhenkoV, SvietlovaN, et al.Effect of zinc and copper nanoparticles on drought resistance of wheat seedlings. Nanoscale Res Lett, 2017; 12:60.
15.
YangKY, DoxeyS, McLeanJ, et al.Remodeling of root morphology by CuO and ZnO nanoparticles: Effects on drought tolerance for plants colonized by a beneficial pseudomonad. Botany, 2018doi.org/10.1139/cjb-2017-0124.
16.
WangZ, XieX, ZhaoJ, et al.Xylem- and phloem-based transport of CuO nanoparticles in maize (Zea mays L.). Environ Sci Technol, 2012; 46:4434–4441.
17.
Trujillo-ReyesJ, MajumdarS, BotezCE, et al.Exposure studies of core-shell Fe/Fe(3)O(4) and Cu/CuO NPs to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) plants: Are they a potential physiological and nutritional hazard?. J Hazard Mater, 2014; 267:255–263.
18.
NairPMG, ChungIM. Impact of copper oxide nanoparticles exposure on Arabidopsis thaliana growth, root system development, root lignification, and molecular level changes. Environ Sci Pollut Res, 2014; 21:12709–12722. doi 10.1007/s11356-014
19.
PrakashMG, ChungIM. Determination of zinc oxide nanoparticles toxicity in root growth in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. Acta Biol Hung, 2016; 67(3):286–296.
20.
AdamsJ, WrightM, WagnerH, et al.Cu from dissolution of CuO nanoparticles signals changes in root morphology. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2016; 110:108–117.
NairPM, ChungIM. Study on the correlation between copper oxide nanoparticles induced growth suppression and enhanced lignification in Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L.). Ecotox Environ Saf, 2015; 113:302–313.
23.
LeeBR, KimKY, JungWJ, et al.Peroxidases and lignification in relation to the intensity of water- deficit stress in white clover (Trifolium repens L.). J Exper Bot, 2007; 58,(6):1271–1279.
24.
BalaS, AsthirB, BainsNS. Syringaldazine peroxidase stimulates lignification by enhancing polyamine catabolism in wheat during heat and drought stress. Cereal Research Commun, 2016; 44:4561–4571.
25.
McKennaBA, KopittkePM, WehrJB, et al.Metal ion effects on hydraulic conductivity of bacterial cellulose-pectin composites used as plant cell wall analogs. Physiol Plant, 2010; 138(2):205–214.
26.
KopittkePM, MenziesNW, de JongeMD, et al.In situ distribution and speciation of toxic copper, nickel, and zinc in hydrated roots of cowpea. Plant Physiol, 2011; 156(2):663–673. doi: 10.1104/pp.111.173716.
27.
KovinichN, KayanjaG, ChanocaA, et al.Abiotic stresses induce different localizations of anthocyanins in Arabidopsis. Plant Signal Behav, 2015; 10:7e1027850
28.
LiangX, ZhangL, NatarajanSK, et al.Proline mechanisms of stress survival. Antioxid Redox Signal, 2013; 19(9):998–1011.
29.
MarslinG, SheebaCJ, FranklinG. Nanoparticles alter secondary metabolism in plants via ROS burst. Front Plant Sci, 2017; 8:832.
30.
MarascoR, RolliE, EttoumiB, et al.A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PLoS One, 2012; 7(10):e48479. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0048479.
31.
TimmuskS, Abd El-DaimIA, CopoloviciL, et al.Drought-tolerance of wheat improved by rhizosphere bacteria from harsh environments: Enhanced biomass production and reduced emissions of stress volatiles. PLoS One, 2014; 9(5):e96086. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096086.
32.
ChoS-M, Kang BR, KimYC. Transcriptome analysis of induced systemic drought tolerance elicited by Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Pathol J, 2013; 29(2):209–220.
33.
VacheronJ, DesbrossesG, BouffaudML, et al.Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and root system functioning. Front Plant Sci, 2013; 4:356. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2013.00356.
TimmuskS, KimSB, NevoE, et al.Sfp-type PPTase inactivation promotes bacterial biofilm formation and ability to enhance wheat drought tolerance. Front Microbiol, 2015; 6:387. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2015.00387.
36.
ChoSM, KangBR, HanSH, et al.2R,3R-butanediol, a bacterial volatile produced by Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6, is involved in induction of systemic tolerance to drought in Arabidopsis thaliana. Mol Plant Microbe Interact, 2008; 21(8):1067–1075. doi: 10.1094/MPMI-21-8-1067.
37.
SharifiR, RyuCM. Are bacterial volatile compounds poisonous odors to a fungal pathogen Botrytis cinerea, alarm signals to Arabidopsis seedlings for eliciting induced resistance or both?. Front Microbiol, 2016; 7:196. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00196.
38.
TimmuskS, PaalmeV, LagercrantzUet al.Detection and quantification of Paenibacillus polymyxa in the rhizosphere of wild barley (Hordeum spontaneum) with real-time PCR. J Appl Micro, 2009; 107:736–745.
39.
Bouskill NJ, Wood TE, BaranR, YeZ, Bowen BP, et al.Belowground response to drought in a tropical forest soil. I. Changes in microbial functional potential and met abolism. Front Microbiol, 2016; 7:525. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2016.00525
40.
PandinC, Le CoqD, CanetteA, et al.Should the biofilm mode of life be taken into consideration for microbial biocontrol agents?. Microb Biotechnol, 2017; 10(4):719–734.
41.
ChenY, YanF, ChaiYR, et al.Biocontrol of tomato wilt disease by Bacillus subtilis isolates from natural environments depends on conserved genes mediating biofilm formation. Environ Microbiol, 2013; 15(3):848–864.
42.
BonebrakeM, AndersonK, ValienteJ, et al.Biofilms benefiting plants exposed to ZnO and CuO nanoparticles studied with a root-mimetic hollow fiber membrane. J Agric Food Chem, 2017;doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02524.
43.
LeeJH, KimYG, ChoMH, et al.ZnO nanoparticles inhibit Pseudomonas aeruginosa biofilm formation and virulence factor production. Microbiol Res, 2014; 169(12):888–896.
44.
HammerschmidtR, KucJ. Lignification as a mechanism for induced systemic resistance in cucumber. Physiol Plant Pathol, 1982; 20:61–71.
45.
DimkpaCO, CalderA, BrittDW, et al.Responses of a soil bacterium, Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 to commercial metal oxide nanoparticles compared with responses to metal ions. Environ Pollut, 2011; 159(7):1749–1756.
46.
DimkpaCO, HansenT, StewartJet al.ZnO nanoparticles and root colonization by a beneficial pseudomonad influence essential metal responses in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Nanotoxicology, 2015; 9(3):271–278.
47.
DimkpaCO, LattaDE, McLeanJE, BrittDW, BoyanovMI, AndersonAJ. Fate of CuO and ZnO nano- and microparticles in the plant environment. Environ Sci Technol, 2013; 47(9):4734–42. doi: 10.1021/es304736y.
48.
DimkpaCO, McLeanJE, LattaDE, et al.CuO and ZnO nanoparticles: Phytotoxicity, metal speciation, and induction of oxidative stress in sand-grown wheat. J Nanopart Res, 2012; 14:1125. doi:10.1007/s11051-012-1125-9
49.
McManusP. 2016. Rhizosphere interactions between copper oxide nanoparticles and wheat root exudate in a sand matrix; Influences on bioavailability and uptake. [thesis] Paper 5058. Utah State University, Logan, Utah.
50.
TalbotMJ, WhiteRG. Methanol fixation of plant tissue for scanning electron microscopy improves preservation of tissue morphology and dimensions. Plant Methods, 2013; 9(1):36.
51.
KashiM, TahermaneshK, ChaichianS, et al.How to prepare biological samples and live tissues for scanning electron microscopy. GMJ, 2014:3:63–80.
ClelandRE. the Instron technique as a measure of immediate past wall extensibility. Planta. 1984; 160:514–520.
54.
FoissnerI, WendehenneD, LangebartelsC, et al.In vivo imaging of an elicitor-induced nitric oxide burst in tobacco. Planta, 2000; 23:817–824.
55.
ZhengM, ChenJ, ShiY, et al.Manipulation of lignin metabolism by plant densities and its relationship with lodging resistance in wheat. Sci Rep, 2017; 7:41805. doi:10.1038/srep41805.
56.
BertinC, YangX, WestonLA. The role of root exudates and allelochemicals in the rhizosphere. Plant Soil, 2003; 256:67–83.
57.
GilroyS, JonesDL. Through form to function: Root hair development and nutrient uptake. Trends Plant Sci, 2000; 5:556–560.
58.
IijimaM, HiguchiT, BarlowPW. Contribution of root cap mucilage and presence of an intact root cap in maize (Zea mays) to the reduction of soil mechanical impedance. Ann Bot, 2000; 94:473-437.
59.
AndersonAJ, McLeanJE, JacobsonAR, et al.CuO and ZnO nanoparticles modify interkingdom cell signaling processes relevant to crop production. J Agric Food Chem, 2017;doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b01302.
60.
DjokoKY, Ong C-LY, WalkerMJ, et al.The role of copper and zinc toxicity in innate immune defense against bacterial pathogens. J Biol Chem, 2015; 290:18954–18961.
61.
DimkpaCO, WhiteJC, ElmerWH, Gardea-TorresdeyJ. Nanoparticle and ionic Zn promote nutrient loading of sorghum grain under low NPK fertilization. J Agric Food Chem, 2017; 65(39):8552–8559. doi: 10.1021/acs.jafc.7b02961.
62.
GoodmanJ, McleanJE, BrittDW, et al.Sublethal doses of ZnO nanoparticle remodel production of cell signaling metabolites in the root colonizer Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6. Environ Sci Nano, 2016; 3:1103–1113.
63.
LequeuxH, HermansC, LuttsS, et al.Response to copper excess in Arabidopsis thaliana: Impact on the root system architecture, hormone distribution, lignin accumulation and mineral profile. Plant Physiol Biochem, 2010; 8(8):673–682.
64.
LoixC, HuybrechtsM, VangronsveldJ, et al.Reciprocal Interactions between cadmium-induced cell wall responses and oxidative stress in plants. Front Plant Sci, 2017; 8:1867. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2017.01867.
65.
SharmaS, UttambKN. Rapid analyses of stress of copper oxide nanoparticles on wheat plants at an early stage by laser induced fluorescence and attenuated total reflectance Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy. Vibrational Spectroscopy. 2017; 92:135–150.
66.
PetőA, LehotaiN, FeiglG, et al.Nitric oxide contributes to copper tolerance by influencing ROS metabolism in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell Rep, 2013; 32(12):1913–1923.
67.
WangH, HuangJ, LiY, et al.Involvement of nitric oxide-mediated alternative pathway in tolerance of wheat to drought stress by optimizing photosynthesis. Plant Cell Rep, 2016; 35(10):2033–2044.
68.
BöhmFMLZ, FerrareseMLL, ZanardoDIL, et al.Nitric oxide affecting root growth, lignification and related enzymes in soybean seedlings. Acta Physiol Plant, 2010; 32:1039.
69.
ServinA, ElmerW, MukherjeeA, et al.A review of the use of engineered nanomaterials to suppress plant disease and enhance crop yield. J Nanopart Res, 2015; 17:92–113.
70.
ChoudharyRC, KumaraswamyRV, KumariS, et al.Cu-chitosan nanoparticle boost defense responses and plant growth in maize (Zea mays L.). Sci Rep, 2017; 7(1):9754. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-08571-0.
71.
IritiM, FaoroF. Abscisic acid is involved in chitosan-induced resistance to tobacco necrosis virus (TNV). Plant Physiol Biochem, 2008; 46:1106–1111. doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2008.08.002
72.
PichyangkuraR, ChadchawanS. Biostimulant activity of chitosan in horticulture. Scientia Hort, 2015; 196:49–56. doi.org/10.1016/j.scienta.2015.09.031
73.
WatsonJL, FangT, DimkpaCO, BrittDW, McLeanJE, et al.The phytotoxicity of ZnO nanoparticles on wheat varies with soil properties. Biometals, 2015; 28(1):101–112. doi: 10.1007/s10534-014-9806-8.
74.
AndersonA, McLeanJ, McManusP, BrittD, Soil chemistry influences the phytotoxicity of metal oxide nanoparticles. Int J Nanotechnol, 2017:14:15–21.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
