The Relationship Between Pathogen-induced Systemic Resistance (ISR) and Multigenic (horizontal) Resistance in Plants

Plants have developed mechanisms to successfully co-exist in the presence of pathogenic organisms. Some interactions between plants and pathogens are based on recognition of specific elicitor molecules from avirulent pathogen races (avr gene products), which is described in the gene-for-gene resistance theory. Another type of resistance, multigenic (horizontal) resistance, is a less well-studied phenomenon that depends upon multiple genes in the plant host. All plants possess resistance mechamisms which can be induced upon pre-treatment of plants with a variety of organisms or compounds. This general phenomenon is known as induced systemic resistance (ISR). At least in some plant species, ISR depends on the timely accumulation of multiple gene products, such as hydrolytic enzymes, peroxidases or other gene products related to plant defences. The pre-treatment of plants with an inducing organism or compound appears to incite the plant to mount an effective defense response upon subsequent encounters with pathogens, converting what would have been a compatible interaction to an incompatible one. Our studies in three plant–pathogen systems clearly document that multigenic-resistant plants constitutively express specific isozymes of hydrolytic enzymes that release cell wall elicitors, which in turn may activate other defense mechanisms. ISR induces constitutive accumulation of these and other gene products prior to challenge. ISR is known to function against multiple organisms, and there is no specificity observed in the accumulation patterns of defense-related gene products when ISR is induced. It is therefore hypothesized that the constitutive accumulation of specific isozymes of hydrolytic enzymes, or other defense related gene products, is an integral part of both multigenic resistance and the phenomenon of ISR. Further, plants in which ISR has been activated appear to move from a latent resistance state to one in which a multigenic, non-specific form of resistance is active.     

Plant responses to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria

Non-pathogenic soilborne microorganisms can promote plant growth, as well as suppress diseases. Plant growth promotion is taken to result from improved nutrient acquisition or hormonal stimulation. Disease suppression can occur through microbial antagonism or induction of resistance in the plant. Several rhizobacterial strains have been shown to act as plant growth-promoting bacteria through both stimulation of growth and induced systemic resistance (ISR), but it is not clear in how far both mechanisms are connected. Induced resistance is manifested as a reduction of the number of diseased plants or in disease severity upon subsequent infection by a pathogen. Such reduced disease susceptibility can be local or systemic, result from developmental or environmental factors and depend on multiple mechanisms. The spectrum of diseases to which PGPR-elicited ISR confers enhanced resistance overlaps partly with that of pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR). Both ISR and SAR represent a state of enhanced basal resistance of the plant that depends on the signalling compounds jasmonic acid and salicylic acid, respectively, and pathogens are differentially sensitive to the resistances activated by each of these signalling pathways. Root-colonizing Pseudomonas bacteria have been shown to alter plant gene expression in roots and leaves to different extents, indicative of recognition of one or more bacterial determinants by specific plant receptors. Conversely, plants can alter root exudation and secrete compounds that interfere with quorum sensing (QS) regulation in the bacteria. Such two-way signalling resembles the interaction of root-nodulating Rhizobia with legumes and between mycorrhizal fungi and roots of the majority of plant species. Although ISR-eliciting rhizobacteria can induce typical early defence-related responses in cell suspensions, in plants they do not necessarily activate defence-related gene expression. Instead, they appear to act through priming of effective resistance mechanisms, as reflected by earlier and stronger defence reactions once infection occurs.     

Costs and trade-offs associated with induced resistance

Plants resist attack by pathogens and herbivorous insects through constitutive and inducible defences. Based on differences in signalling pathways and spectra of effectiveness, different types of induced resistance have been defined. Systemic acquired resistance (SAR) occurs in distal plant parts following localized infection by a necrotizing pathogen. It is controlled by a signalling pathway that depends upon the accumulation of salicylic acid (SA) and the regulatory protein NPR1. In contrast, induced systemic resistance (ISR) is induced by selected strains of non-pathogenic plant growth promoting bacteria (PGPR). ISR functions independently of SA, but requires NPR1 and is regulated by jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene (ET). It is generally believed that induced resistance evolved to save energy under pathogen or insect-free conditions, although costs still arise when defences are activated following attack. Costs can arise from the allocation of resources to defence and away from plant growth and development, and there are also ecological costs which result from trade-offs between induced resistance and the plant's interaction with beneficial organisms e.g. mycorrhizal fungi. To date, few studies have examined the costs and trade-offs associated with induced resistance to pathogens. There is a clear need for long-term studies of costs and trade-offs associated with induced resistance in crops under commercial conditions. Without such information, the potential offered by induced resistance is unlikely to be realized.     

Induced Systemic Resistance and Promotion of Plant Growth by Bacillus spp

ABSTRACT Elicitation of induced systemic resistance (ISR) by plant-associated bacteria was initially demonstrated using Pseudomonas spp. and other gram-negative bacteria. Several reviews have summarized various aspects of the large volume of literature on Pseudomonas spp. as elicitors of ISR. Fewer published accounts of ISR by Bacillus spp. are available, and we review this literature for the first time. Published results are summarized showing that specific strains of the species B. amyloliquefaciens, B. subtilis, B. pasteurii, B. cereus, B. pumilus, B. mycoides, and B. sphaericus elicit significant reductions in the incidence or severity of various diseases on a diversity of hosts. Elicitation of ISR by these strains has been demonstrated in greenhouse or field trials on tomato, bell pepper, muskmelon, watermelon, sugar beet, tobacco, Arabidopsis sp., cucumber, loblolly pine, and two tropical crops (long cayenne pepper and green kuang futsoi). Protection resulting from ISR elicited by Bacillus spp. has been reported against leaf-spotting fungal and bacterial pathogens, systemic viruses, a crown-rotting fungal pathogen, root-knot nematodes, and a stem-blight fungal pathogen as well as damping-off, blue mold, and late blight diseases. Reductions in populations of three insect vectors have also been noted in the field: striped and spotted cucumber beetles that transmit cucurbit wilt disease and the silver leaf whitefly that transmits Tomato mottle virus. In most cases, Bacillus spp. that elicit ISR also elicit plant growth promotion. Studies on mechanisms indicate that elicitation of ISR by Bacillus spp. is associated with ultrastructural changes in plants during pathogen attack and with cytochemical alterations. Investigations into the signal transduction pathways of elicited plants suggest that Bacillus spp. activate some of the same pathways as Pseudomonas spp. and some additional pathways. For example, ISR elicited by several strains of Bacillus spp. is independent of salicylic acid but dependent on jasmonic acid, ethylene, and the regulatory gene NPR1-results that are in agreement with the model for ISR elicited by Pseudomonas spp. However, in other cases, ISR elicited by Bacillus spp. is dependent on salicylic acid and independent of jasmonic acid and NPR1. In addition, while ISR by Pseudomonas spp. does not lead to accumulation of the defense gene PR1 in plants, in some cases, ISR by Bacillus spp. does. Based on the strains and results summarized in this review, two products for commercial agriculture have been developed, one aimed mainly at plant growth promotion for transplanted vegetables and one, which has received registration from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, for disease protection on soybean.     

Assessment of resistance pathways induced in Arabidopsis thaliana by hypovirulent Rhizoctonia spp. isolates

Certain hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates effectively protect plants against well-known important pathogens among Rhizoctonia isolates as well as against other pathogens. The modes of action involved in this protection include resistance induced in plants by colonization with hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates. The qualifications of hypovirulent isolates (efficient protection, rapid growth, effective colonization of the plants, and easy application in the field) provide a significant potential for the development of a commercial microbial preparation for application as biological control agents. Understanding of the modes of action involved in protection is important for improving the various aspects of development and application of such preparations. The hypothesis of the present study is that resistance pathways such as systemic acquired resistance (SAR), induced systemic resistance (ISR), and phytoalexins are induced in plants colonized by the protective hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates and are involved in the protection of these plants against pathogenic Rhizoctonia. Changes in protection levels of Arabidopsis thaliana mutants defective in defense-related genes (npr1-1, npr1-2, ndr1-1, npr1-2/ndr1-1, cim6, wrky70.1, snc1, and pbs3-1) and colonized with the hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates compared with that of the wild type (wt) plants colonized with the same isolates confirmed the involvement of induced resistance in the protection of the plants against pathogenic Rhizoctonia spp., although protection levels of mutants constantly expressing SAR genes (snc1 and cim6) were lower than that of wt plants. Plant colonization by hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates induced elevated expression levels of the following genes: PR5 (SAR), PDF1.2, LOX2, LOX1, CORI3 (ISR), and PAD3 (phytoalexin production), which indicated that all of these pathways were induced in the hypovirulent-colonized plants. When SAR or ISR were induced separately in plants after application of the chemical inducers Bion and methyl jasmonate, respectively, only ISR activation resulted in a higher protection level against the pathogen, although the protection was minor. In conclusion, plant colonization with the protective hypovirulent Rhizoctonia isolates significantly induced genes involved in the SAR, ISR, and phytoalexin production pathways. In the studied system, SAR probably did not play a major role in the mode of protection against pathogenic Rhizoctonia spp.; however, it may play a more significant role in protection against other pathogens.     

Rhizobacteria-mediated Induced Systemic Resistance: Triggering, Signalling and Expression

Selected strains of rhizosphere bacteria reduce disease by activating a resistance mechanism in the plant named rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR). Rhizobacteria-mediated ISR resembles pathogen-induced systemic acquired resistance (SAR) in that both types of induced resistance render uninfected plant parts more resistant towards a broad spectrum of plant pathogens. Some rhizobacteria trigger the salicylic acid (SA)-dependent SAR pathway by producing SA at the root surface. In other cases, rhizobacteria trigger a different signalling pathway that does not require SA. The existence of a SA-independent ISR pathway has been demonstrated in Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to pathogen-induced SAR, ISR induced by Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r is independent of SA accumulation and pathogenesis-related (PR) gene activation but, instead, requires responsiveness to the plant hormones jasmonic acid (JA) and ethylene. Mutant analyses showed that ISR follows a novel signalling pathway in which components from the JA and ethylene response are successively engaged to trigger a defensive state that, like SAR, is controlled by the regulatory factor NPR1. Interestingly, simultaneous activation of both the JA/ethylene-dependent ISR pathway and the SA-dependent SAR pathway results in an enhanced level of protection. Thus combining both types of induced resistance provides an attractive tool for the improvement of disease control. This review focuses on the current status of our research on triggering, signalling, and expression of rhizobacteria-mediated ISR in Arabidopsis.     

Induced systemic protection against tomato late blight elicited by plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria

ABSTRACT Two strains of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), Bacillus pumilus SE34 and Pseudomonas fluorescens 89B61, elicited systemic protection against late blight on tomato and reduced disease severity by a level equivalent to systemic acquired resistance induced by Phytophthora infestans or induced local resistance by chemical inducer beta-amino butyric acid (BABA) in greenhouse assays. Germination of sporangia and zoospores of P. infestans on leaf surfaces of tomato plants treated with the two PGPR strains, pathogen, and chemical BABA was significantly reduced compared with the noninduced control. Induced protection elicited by PGPR, pathogen, and BABA were examined to determine the signal transduction pathways in three tomato lines: salicylic acid (SA)-hydroxylase transgenic tomato (nahG), ethylene insensitive mutants (Nr/Nr), and jasmonic acid insensitive mutants (def1). Results suggest that induced protection elicited by both bacilli and pseudomonad PGPR strains was SA-independent but ethylene- and jasmonic acid-dependent, whereas systemic acquired resistance elicited by the pathogen and induced local resistance by BABA were SA-dependent. The lack of colonization of tomato leaves by strain 89B61 suggests that the observed induced systemic resistance (ISR) was due to systemic protection by strain 89B61 and not attributable to a direct interaction between pathogen and biological control agent. Although strain SE34 was detected on tomato leaves, ISR mainly accounted for the systemic protection with this strain.     

Suppression of clubroot by Clonostachys rosea via antibiosis and induced host resistance

The mechanism of the biofungicide Prestop^® (Clonostachys rosea) was investigated for control of clubroot (Plasmodiophora brassicae) on canola. The key product components were partitioned and assessed for their effect on pathogen resting spores, root hair infection (RHI) and disease development using light microscopy, quantitative PCR and different application treatments during infection. The whole product of Prestop was consistently more effective than the C. rosea conidial suspension or product filtrate alone in reducing RHI and clubroot development. This biofungicide showed little effect on germination or viability of resting spores. Two‐application treatments at seeding and 7–14 days after seeding achieved greater clubroot control than a single application of the biofungicide at either seeding or post‐seeding stage. This may indicate the need to maintain a high biofungicide dose in the soil during primary and secondary infection. This biocontrol fungus colonized the rhizosphere and interior of canola roots extensively, and possibly induced plant resistance based on up‐regulation of the genes that are involved in jasmonic acid (BnOPR2), ethylene (BnACO) and phenylpropanoid (BnOPCL, BnCCR) biosynthetic pathways. It is concluded that the biofungicide Prestop suppressed clubroot on canola at least via root colonization and induced systemic resistance (ISR), and the latter may be through the modulation of phenylpropanoid and jasmonic acid/ethylene metabolic pathways elicited by the fungus.     

Apoptosis, programmed cell death and the hypersensitive response

Apoptosis is typically a morphologically identifiable form of programmed cell death in mammals that is regulated by genes with homologues in other animal Phyla. Although both plants and fungal plant pathogens exhibit forms of developmental programmed cell death, demonstrated morphological or genetic homologies with mammalian apoptosis are still generally lacking. Because of its ubiquity and the involvement of signal transduction pathways in its induction, a strong case is developing that the hypersensitive response is a specific form of plant programmed cell death evolved as a defense against microbial parasites. Data suggest that separate signalling pathways may lead to the cell death and the defense gene activation that characterize this response and that parasite-specific resistance genes represent only one of many types of genes involved in response regulation. However, despite some biochemical similarities between the hypersensitive response, forms of developmental programmed cell death in plants, and animal apoptosis, no unique and consistent markers for the hypersensitive response (or plant programmed cell death in general) have yet been found. Whether any of these forms of plant cell death should be called apoptosis depends on how the term is defined. Assuming the hypersensitive response is a form of programmed cell death and is the default state upon pathogen entry into a cell, it seems likely that intracellular biotrophic plant pathogens resemble some animal viruses in being able to suppress this response in susceptible hosts.     

Induced Systemic Resistance by Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp

ABSTRACT Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. have been studied for decades for their plant growth-promoting effects through effective suppression of soilborne plant diseases. The modes of action that play a role in disease suppression by these bacteria include siderophore-mediated competition for iron, antibiosis, production of lytic enzymes, and induced systemic resistance (ISR). The involvement of ISR is typically studied in systems in which the Pseudomonas bacteria and the pathogen are inoculated and remain spatially separated on the plant, e.g., the bacteria on the root and the pathogen on the leaf, or by use of split root systems. Since no direct interactions are possible between the two populations, suppression of disease development has to be plant-mediated. In this review, bacterial traits involved in Pseudomonas-mediated ISR will be discussed.     

植物系统性获得抗病性的产生机理和途径

坏死型病原物侵染或某些生化制剂诱导处理后,植株未受侵染或处理部位产生对随后病原物侵染的抗性,称为植物系统性获得抗性,ＳＡＲ具有抗性表现系统、持久、抗病对象广谱三大特点。坏死型病原物侵染或某些生化制剂处理后,植株受处理部位迅速产生系统性信号,经韧皮部传导到未侵染或处理部位,诱发ＳＡＲ基因表达。水杨酸是诱发ＳＡＲ的系统性信号之一。此外,上部非处理部位处于敏化状态,能更迅速有效地产生针对挑战接种病原物的     

内生细菌EBS05对烟草诱导抗性的信号转导途径研究

 樟树内生枯草芽胞杆菌EBS05是一株对多种植物病原菌具有较强拮抗活性,并能诱导烟草系统抗性的生防菌株。本文以缺失Surfactin A合成相关基因的突变菌株EBS05^T为材料,研究了内生细菌EBS05对烟草诱导系统抗性的激发子及其信号转导途径。结果表明,菌株EBS05产生的Surfactin A是诱导烟草对TMV系统抗性的有效激发子;Surfactin A诱导处理后,SA信号转导途径下游的关键调节基因NPR1首先被激活,并持续超量表达,进而触发PR1b和PR1a基因持续超量表达,表明Surfactin A诱导烟草对TMV的系统抗性是通过激活SA信号转导途径实现的。同时,Surfactin A诱导处理后24~72 h,JA/ET信号转导途径调节基因PDF1.2被激活,且超量表达,表明在Surfactin A诱导烟草对TMV系统抗性的信号转导过程中,可能存在SA信号途径和JA/ET信号途径的交叉协同作用。     

拟南芥的抗病信号传导途径

 拟南芥是研究植物与病原物相互作用的模式植物。植物感病和抗病取决于病原物无毒基因产物和寄主抗病基因产物的识别,以及随后的相关防卫反应的激活。在拟南芥的抗病过程中,水杨酸、茉莉酸、乙烯等信号分子都不同程度地参与着抗病过程中的不同环节,起着非常重要的作用。由于这些信号分子在对不同病原菌的抗性中的作用存在差异,因而将抗病信号传导分为依赖于水杨酸和依赖于茉莉酸/乙烯的途径。本文将着重讨论这些信号分子在植物系统获得抗性以及诱导系统抗性中的作用。     

Heritability Of Rhizobacteria-mediated Induced Systemic Resistance And Basal Resistance In Arabidopsis

Selected strains of non-pathogenic rhizobacteria have the ability to trigger an induced systemic resistance (ISR) response in plants. In Arabidopsis, rhizobacteria-mediated ISR has been extensively studied, using Pseudomonas fluorescens WCS417r as the inducing agent and P. syringae pv. tomato DC3000 (Pst) as the challenging pathogen. To investigate how far expression of ISR depends on the level of basal resistance, 10 different Arabidopsis ecotypes were screened for their potential to express WCS417r-mediated ISR and basal resistance against Pst. Two Arabidopsis ecotypes, RLD and Wassilewskija (Ws), were found to be blocked in their ability to express ISR. This ISR-noninducible phenotype correlated with a relatively low level of basal resistance against Pst. Genetic analysis of crosses between the ISR-inducible ecotypes Columbia (Col) and Landsberg erecta (Ler), on the one hand, and the non-inducible ecotypes RLD and Ws, on the other hand, revealed that ISR inducibility and basal resistance against Pst were inherited as monogenic dominant traits that are genetically linked. Neither ISR inducibility, nor basal resistance against Pst was complemented in the F₁ progeny of a cross between RLD and Ws, indicating that both ecotypes are affected in the same locus. This locus, designated ISR1, was mapped between markers Ein3 and GL1 on chromosome III. Interestingly, ecotypes RLD and Ws also failed to express ISR against the oomycetous pathogen Peronospora parasitica, but they were not affected in their level of basal resistance against this pathogen. Thus, the ISR1 locus controls the expression of ISR against different pathogens but basal resistance only against Pst and not against P. parasitica. Like ecotypes RLD and Ws, ethylene-insensitive mutants showed the isr1 phenotype in that they were unable to express WCS417r-mediated ISR and show enhanced susceptibility to Pst infection. Analysis of ethylene responsiveness of RLD and Ws revealed that both ecotypes exhibit reduced sensitivity to ethylene. Therefore, it is proposed that the Arabidopsis ISR1 locus encodes a component of the ethylene-response pathway that plays an important role in ethylene-dependent resistance mechanisms.     

The postharvest phase: Emerging technologies for the control of fungal diseases

Postharvest biological treatment entails a range of different approaches, including strengthening of the commodity’s natural defense mechanisms and application of antagonistic microorganisms and natural antimicrobial substances. Postharvest biological treatment has highlighted the potential of antagonistic microorganisms (fungi, bacteria and yeasts) against a limited number of pathogens, and only on specific hosts. Further studies are therefore required to identify antagonists with a broad spectrum of activity. The resistance of fruits and vegetables to postharvest diseases is closely linked to the ripening process, and drops markedly with the onset of tissue senescence: It is now possible to protect the product by inducing disease resistance. Plants produce a large number of secondary metabolites with antimicrobial effect on the main postharvest pathogens. Detailed studies have been conducted on aromatic compounds, essential oils and volatile substances. Combination of the above complementary techniques could well lead to effective control of postharvest fungal diseases.     

Identification of an ISR‐related metabolite produced by rhizobacterium Klebsiella oxytoca C1036 active against soft‐rot disease pathogen in tobacco

BACKGROUND: Klebsiella oxytoca C1036 (C1036) causes induced systemic resistance (ISR) activity against the soft‐rot pathogen Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum SCC1 (SCC1). However, microbial metabolites from C1036 involved in ISR activity remain unknown. The present study was performed to identify an ISR‐related metabolite produced by C1036. RESULTS: The supernatants of C1036 cultures grown on Luria‐Bertani medium were subjected to solvent extraction, repeated column chromatography and preparative liquid chromatography for isolation of an ISR‐related metabolite. High‐resolution mass spectrometer analysis of the isolated metabolite indicated a C₉H₁₅O₃N compound with a mass of 185.11. Low‐resolution mass spectrometer analysis of the metabolite showed a molecular ion peak at 185 and its fragment ions at 84 and 56. Nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometer analyses characterised all protons and carbons of the isolated metabolite. Based on the data, the isolated metabolite was determined to be butyl 2‐pyrrolidone‐5‐carboxylate (BPC). BPC at 12 mM significantly suppressed the disease symptoms in ISR bioassays against SCC1. CONCLUSION: This is the first report identifying BPC as an ISR‐related metabolite produced by C1036. C1036 may play a role in promoting plant growth because it produces ISR‐related metabolites against the plant pathogen SCC1. Copyright © 2009 Society of Chemical Industry     

Plant—pathogen Interactions: Genetic and Comparative Analyses

The interactions between plants and pathogens can be shifted to favor either plant of pathogen by small changes in the environment, primarily temperature and plant nutrition, and it leaves a quandary as to whether the plant on pathogen is most affected by the change in the environment. The stage of development of a plant can affect the resistance or susceptibility to a pathogen. A plant may be susceptible to a given pathogen a one stage of development but resistant at another stage of development. The view of the gene-for-gene hypotheses as a one-for-one relationship is not supported by experiments that ask whether avirulence genes and resistance genes function alone. The term genomics has been intemreted several different ways, but its most useful impact on studies of host-pathogen interactions will, most likely, be to find all the pieces to the puzzle of how plants and pathogens communicate.     

Target the core: durable plant resistance against filamentous plant pathogens through effector recognition

Plant pathogens colonize their host through the secretion of effector proteins that modulate plant metabolism and immune responses to their benefit. Plants evolve towards effector recognition, leading to host immunity. Typically, pathogen effectors are targets for recognition through plant receptors that are encoded by resistance genes. Resistance gene mediated crop immunity puts a tremendous pressure on pathogens to adapt and alter their effector repertoire to overcome recognition. We argue that the type of effector that is recognized by the host may have considerable implications on the durability of resistance against filamentous plant pathogens. Effector genes that are conserved among pathogens and reside in core genome regions are most likely to hold indispensable virulence functions. Consequently, the cost for the pathogen to overcome recognition by the host is higher than for diversified, host‐specific effectors with a quantitative impact on virulence. Consequently, resistance genes that directly target conserved effector proteins without the interception of other effector proteins are potentially excellent resistance resources. © 2019 The Authors. Pest Management Science published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Society of Chemical Industry.