Patent Grant
10645934
The present invention relates to a novel species of Enterobacter, and to its use in connection with, among other things, plant growth and development.
Changes in the Earth's climate can be expected to have a strong effect on agricultural productivity. For example, increases in emissions from fossil fuel combustion are considered to have affected the Earth's climate, which have made the production of biofuels from renewable resources more desirable. Another way in which climate change is expected to impact agricultural productivity is by increasing temperatures and by affecting rainfall patterns.
Although an increased demand of agricultural resources in the production of feedstocks for biofuel production is desirable, this increased demand is balanced by a simultaneous increased demand for food to feed a still growing world population.
Therefore, there is a need for sustainable practices that can be used to optimize the production of food and biofuel feedstocks. Such practices would optimally increase overall plant productivity in a sustainable manner, increase drought tolerance in plants so that crops and feedstocks can withstand major fluctuations in rainfall patterns, and increase tolerance to pathogen infections in plants.
In one aspect, the invention relates to an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
In another aspect, the invention relates to an inoculant for a plant. The inoculant includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 and a biologically acceptable medium.
In yet another aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing growth in a plant. The method includes applying a composition to the plant in an amount effective for increasing growth in the plant, wherein the composition includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
In a further aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing biomass in a plant. The method includes applying a composition to the plant in an amount effective for increasing biomass in the plant. The composition includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
In yet a further aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing fruit and/or seed productivity in a plant. The method includes applying a composition to the plant in an amount effective for increasing fruit and/or seed productivity in the plant. The composition includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
In an additional aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing disease tolerance in a plant. The method includes applying a composition to the plant in an amount effective for increasing disease tolerance in the plant. The composition includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
In yet an additional aspect, the invention relates to a method of increasing drought tolerance in a plant. The method includes applying a composition to the plant in an amount effective for increasing disease tolerance in the plant. The composition includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
Other objects advantages and aspects of the present invention will become apparent from the following specification and the figures.
A biological deposit of the Enterobacter sp. 638 according to the invention was made on Mar. 4, 2011 with ATCC Patent Depository, 10801 University Blvd., Manassas, Va. 20110.
A. Culture of Enterobacter sp. 638
In one aspect, the invention relates to an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638. Enterobacter sp. 638 is a non-phytopathogenic bacterial strain. The Enterobacter sp. 638 strain was isolated under aerobic conditions from surface-sterilized root and stem samples taken from hybrid poplar tree H11-11 that were grown in a silty loam soil with groundwater below it that was contaminated with carbon tetrachloride or trichloroethylene.
The Enterobacter sp. 638 strain includes a single circular chromosome of 4,518,712 bp with an overall G+C content of 52.98%, and it stably includes a plasmid pENT638-1 of 157,749 bp, having an overall G+C content of 50.57%. The pENT638-1 plasmid displays, based on GC content, at least four distinct regions. The pENT638-1 plasmid is related to F plasmids found in other Enterobacteriaceae. Plasmids of this family are involved in host interaction and virulence, such as pFra plasmid of the plague microbe Yersinia pestis. In pENT638-1, however, the pFra pathogenicity island is replaced by a unique 23-kb putative genomic island (flanked by an integrase gene and having a GC content that is significantly different than that of the rest of the plasmid).
An “isolated culture” refers to a culture of the microorganism that does not include other materials (i) which are normally found in soil in which the microorganism grows, and/or (ii) from which the microorganism is isolated. In addition, such a culture may be a culture that does not contain any other biological, microorganism, and/or bacterial species in quantities sufficient to interfere with the replication of the culture or to be detected by normal bacteriological, molecular biology, and/or chemical techniques.
B. Inoculant for a Plant
In another aspect, the invention relates to an inoculant for a plant. The inoculant includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 and a biologically acceptable medium. The terms “microbial inoculant” or “inoculant” refer to a preparation that includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638.
To facilitate the culture of the Enterobacter sp. 638, the culture may be diluted, for example, with a suitable medium or carrier. A “biologically acceptable medium” refers to a medium that does not interfere with the effectiveness of the biological activity of Enterobacter sp. 638 and which is not toxic to Enterobacter sp. 638.
Examples of a biologically acceptable medium include a minimal salt medium with gluconate and a diluted rich medium ( 1/100 LB). The biologically acceptable medium may include carbon sources, such as the following exemplary compounds: D-mannitol, lactose, sucrose, arbutin, salicin, trehalose, D-mannose, L-arabinose, maltose, cellobiose, xylose, gluconate and glucose. Preferably, the medium includes glucose, sucrose, other plant derived sugars, and/or poplar extract to induce the induction of plant growth-promoting phytohormones (acetoin, 2,3-butanediol, see
In one embodiment, the inoculant further includes a plant-growth promoting microorganism, including, for example, a plant-growth promoting endophytic bacterium, fungus, rhizosphere bacterium and/or a mycorrhizal fungus. Specific exemplary plant-growth promoting microorganisms include but are not limited to members of the genera Actinobacter, Alcaligenes, Bacillus, Burkholderia, Buttiauxella, Enterobacter, Klebsiella, Kluyvera, Pseudomonas, Rahnella, Ralstonia, Rhizobium, Serratia, and Stenotrophomonas.
C. Method for Increasing Growth
In another aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing growth in a plant. The method includes applying an effective amount of a composition including an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 to the plant.
A “plant” as used herein refers to any type of plant, such as a tree, shrub, flower, herb, vine, or grass. The term “plant” also refers to any part of the plant, for example, to a whole plant, a plant part, a plant cell, or a group of plant cells, such as plant tissue, or progeny of same. Plantlets are also included within the meaning of “plant.” Plants include, for example, any gymnosperms and angiosperms, both monocotyledons and dicotyledons, and trees.
Examples of monocotyledonous angiosperms include, but are not limited to, asparagus, field and sweet corn, barley, wheat, rice, sorghum, onion, pearl millet, rye and oats and other cereal grains, sugar cane, elephant grass, switch grass and miscanthus.
Examples of dicotyledonous angiosperms include, but are not limited to tomato, tobacco, cotton, rapeseed, field beans, soybeans, peppers, lettuce, peas, alfalfa, clover, cole crops or Brassica oleracea (e.g., cabbage, broccoli, cauliflower, brussel sprouts), radish, carrot, beets, eggplant, spinach, cucumber, squash, melons, cantaloupe, sunflowers and various ornamentals. In a preferred embodiment, the plant is a tomato. In another preferred embodiment, the plant is sunflower. In yet another preferred embodiment, the plant is tobacco.
Examples of woody species of plants include poplar, pine, sequoia, cedar, oak, etc. Tree species further include, for example, fir, pine, spruce, larch, cedar, hemlock, acacia, alder, aspen, beech, birch, sweet gum, sycamore, poplar, willow, and the like. In a preferred embodiment, the plant is a poplar.
As used herein, the term “increasing” growth refers to an increase in a growth characteristic of a plant treated with a method or composition of the invention, in which the increase in the growth characteristic is greater than the growth in a corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition. A “corresponding” control plant refers to a wild-type plant that is of the same type or species as the plant treated with a method or composition of the invention.
The increase in growth can be an increase in growth of a particular part of the plant, such as the roots, shoots, leaves, flowers, fruits, and/or seeds, or growth can be distributed throughout the entire plant. Means for measuring growth are known in the art.
Increased growth may include, for example, an increase in at least one, or a combination of, the following characteristics in the plant and/or a part of the plant: height, width, mass, an accumulation of radioactive carbon, an increase in dry weight, an increase in fresh weight and/or an increase in the rate of such increases over a specific period of time.
Increase in growth may also include, for example, an increase in the amount of fruit produced, a decrease in time to flowering, and/or an increase in the mass of vegetative parts that serve a useful purpose, such as roots or tubers from plants in which these parts are a food source.
The increase in growth may be an increase that is 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 (or more)-fold greater as compared to the growth of a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition. For example, a plant having increased growth as compared to the control plant may have 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100% or greater growth than the corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
D. Method for Increasing Biomass
In a further aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing biomass in a plant. The method includes applying an effective amount of a composition including an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 to the plant.
The term “biomass” refers to the dry weight or fresh weight of the plant. Biomass includes, for example, all plant parts unless otherwise stipulated, such as in reference to shoot biomass (all above ground plant parts), leaf biomass, and root biomass. The term “dry weight” refers to the weight of a plant that has been dried to remove the majority of cellular water. The term “fresh weight” refers to the weight of a plant that has not been dried to remove the majority of cellular water. Means for measuring biomass are known in the art.
The term “increasing biomass” refers to an increase in biomass of a plant treated with a method or composition of the invention, in which the increase in biomass is an amount greater than the amount of biomass in a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
The increase in biomass may be an increase that is 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 (or more) fold greater as compared to the biomass of a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition. For example, a plant having increased biomass as compared to the wild-type plant may have 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100% or greater biomass than the corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
E. Method for Increasing Disease Tolerance and/or Resistance
In yet another aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing disease tolerance and/or resistance in a plant. The method includes applying an effective amount of a composition including an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 to the plant. While not being limited to any particular theory, Enterobacter sp. 638 may increase disease tolerance and/or resistance in a plant due to a production of acetoin and 2,3-butanediol by Enterobacter sp. 638, or due to a production of the antimicrobial compounds 2-phenylethanol and 4-hydroxybenzoate, or via direct competition for essential nutrients via the synthesis of the siderophore enterobactin, and/or via the uptake of heterologously produced iron siderophore complexes by Enterobacter sp. 638.
The term “disease tolerance” refers to the ability of a plant to endure or resist a disease while maintaining the ability to function and produce despite the disease. A disease includes, for example, the presence of a pathology which adversely affects the viability of a plant, such as, for example, an infection by a pathogen (e.g., a fungus, virus, or bacteria) in and/or on the plant.
The term “disease resistance” refers to the ability of a plant to develop fewer disease symptoms following exposure to a disease than the corresponding control plant that does not exhibit disease resistance when grown under identical conditions and disease. Disease resistance includes complete resistance to the disease and/or varying degrees of resistance manifested as decreased symptoms, longer survival, or other disease parameters, such as higher yield, increased growth, increased biomass, accelerated fruit ripening, etc.
A disease may be, for example, a fungal infection such as Septoria, Melampsora, or septotina, a viral infection such as the poplar mosaic virus, and/or a bacterial infection, such as an infection from Agrobacterium, Rickettsia, or Corynebacterium.
The term “increasing” disease tolerance and/or resistance refers to an increase in disease tolerance and/or resistance of a diseased plant treated with a method or composition of the invention, in which the disease tolerance and/or resistance is greater than the disease tolerance and/or resistance in a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions and disease.
The increase disease tolerance and/or resistance may be an increase that is 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 (or more) fold greater as compared to the tolerance and/or resistance of a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions and disease exposure. For example, a plant having increased disease tolerance and/or resistance as compared to the wild-type plant may have 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100% or greater disease tolerance and/or resistance than the corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
Methods for assessing disease tolerance and/or resistance are known in the art. For example, such methods may include observations and ratings of physical manifestations of disease symptoms, loss of plant vigor, or death, and activation of specific disease response genes, as compared to a control plant.
F. Method for Increasing Fruit and/or Seed Productivity
In yet a further aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing fruit and/or seed productivity in a plant. The method includes applying an effective amount of a composition including an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638 to the plant.
“Increasing productivity” refers to increasing the mass or number of fruit and/or seed produced by a plant treated with a method or composition of the invention, in which the increase in productivity is an amount greater than the amount of productivity in a corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
Methods of assessing an increase in productivity may include, for example, determining the number of fruits produced by the plant, the weight of individual fruits produced by the plant, the time to flowering in the plant, the time to fruit maturation in the plant, and/or the number of seeds produced by an individual fruit or flower of the plant.
Productivity is increased in a plant if, for example, the number of fruit produced by the plant is increased, the weight of individual fruits produced by the plant is increased, the time to flowering in the plant is decreased, the time to fruit maturation in the plant is decreased, and/or the number of seeds produced by an individual fruit or flower of the plant is increased when compared to a corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
The increase or decrease in productivity may be a respective increase or decrease that is 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 (or more) fold greater or less than the productivity of a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition. For example, a plant having increased productivity as compared to the control plant may have 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100% or greater productivity than the corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
G. Method for Increasing Drought Tolerance and/or Resistance
In another aspect, the invention relates to a method for increasing drought tolerance and/or resistance in a plant. The method includes treating the plant with a composition that includes an isolated culture of Enterobacter sp. 638. While not being limited to any particular theory, Enterobacter sp. 638 may increase drought tolerance and/or resistance in a plant due to a production of acetoin and 2,3-butanediol by Enterobacter sp. 638.
The term “drought tolerance” refers to the ability of a plant to endure or resist drought conditions. “Drought” refers to a condition in which a plant is subjected to osmotic stress or reduced water potential. For example, drought may be caused by lack of available water for a period of time. Drought conditions may be assessed by comparing the amount of water required for growth or maturation a plant to the amount of water available to the plant. Drought conditions may be caused, for example, by lack of rainfall or irrigation, relative to the amount of water used internally or transpired by a plant.
The term “drought resistance” refers to the ability of a plant to develop fewer symptoms of water stress (e.g., lower productivity, leaf loss, death) than the corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions of water stress. Drought resistance includes complete resistance to the effects of drought (no loss of productivity) or varying degrees of resistance manifested as decreased symptoms or longer survival.
Phenotypic assessment of symptoms may be used to determine whether, and to what extent, a plant is suffering from drought. For example, drought tolerance and/or resistance may be assessed by observing and rating wilting, growth arrest, death, productivity, leaf loss (e.g., leaf rolling, leaf distortion, leaf drop, leaf scorch), stem or twig dieback, photosynthetic efficiency, flowering, and yield level in a plant. In addition, drought tolerance and/or resistance of a plant may be assessed, for example, by biochemical or nucleic acid based assays to measure expression or activation of specific response genes in the plant.
Drought tolerance and/or resistance is increased in a plant if the plant demonstrates less severe symptoms of stress caused by the drought. For example, drought tolerance and/or resistance is increased if wilting, growth arrest, death, leaf loss (e.g., leaf rolling, leaf distortion, leaf drop, leaf scorch), and/or stem or twig dieback is decreased when compared to a corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition. Other examples of an increased drought tolerance and/or resistance include an increase in productivity, plant vigor, photosynthetic efficiency, flowering, and/or yield level in a plant when compared to a corresponding control plant when grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
Accordingly, the term “increasing” drought tolerance and/or resistance refers to an increase in drought tolerance and/or resistance of an impacted plant treated with a method or composition of the invention, in which the tolerance and/or resistance is greater than the drought tolerance and/or resistance in a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions and water stress.
The increase drought tolerance and/or resistance may be an increase that is 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 20 (or more) fold greater as compared to the tolerance and/or resistance of a corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions and water stress. For example, a plant having increased drought tolerance and/or resistance as compared to the control plant may have 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60% 70%, 75%, 80%, 90%, 100% or greater drought tolerance and/or resistance than the corresponding control plant grown under identical conditions without application of the inventive method or composition.
H. General Methods
Any method of applying a composition to a plant may be used in the methods of the present invention. Methods of applying a composition on and/or in a plant are known in the art. In one embodiment, the composition may be inoculated into the soil with the plant. In another embodiment, the inventive composition may be introduced to the plant roots through growth in a hydroponic medium or sprayed onto the leaves of a plant.
The composition of the invention may be applied to any part of the plant, including the seeds through the use of a suitable coating mechanism or binder. The inventive composition may either be applied on the plants prior to planting or be introduced into the plant furrows during planting. As another example, the inventive composition may be applied to the roots of the plant. The inventive composition may be prepared with or without a carrier and sold as a separate inoculant to be inserted directly into the furrows into which the plant is planted.
In accordance with the methods of the invention, an effective amount of the inventive composition is that amount sufficient to establish sufficient bacterial growth such that the desired result is achieved in the treated plant. An effective amount of the inventive composition may be determined by known means in the art for a particular plant species. For example, inoculation with the inventive composition may be conducted in hydroponics for six days, and the bacterial suspension may be refreshed after three days following inoculation.
In one embodiment, the effective amount may, for example, be any amount from about 101 to about 1012 cells per plant. In another embodiment, the effective amount is a cell concentration from about 105 to about 1010 CFU/ml of inoculum, more preferably from about 106 to 108 CFU/ml, and most preferably about 108 CFU/ml. In yet another embodiment, the inventive composition can be mixed with the soil in an amount of from about 105 to 1010 cells per gram of soil.
Root and shoot samples were collected from the 10-year-old hybrid poplar tree H11-11 (Populus trichocarpa_P. deltoides) that had been growing in the presence of carbon tetrachloride (12 ppm homogeneously) for 8 years at an experimental site in Washington State. In addition, native willow (Salix gooddingii) material was collected from 5-year-old native plants that had been growing in the presence of both trichloroethylene (18 ppm) and carbon tetrachloride (12 ppm) for 5 years. Cuttings were removed from the plants with clippers that were washed with ethanol between cuts and placed in acetone-rinsed volatile organic analysis vials which were placed on ice for shipment from the field. Roots and shoots were treated separately. Fresh root and shoot samples were vigorously washed in distilled water for 5 min, surface sterilized for 5 min in a solution containing 1% (wt/vol) active chloride (added as a sodium hypochlorite [NaOCl] solution) supplemented with 1 droplet Tween 80 per 100 ml solution, and rinsed three times in sterile distilled water. A 100-μl sample of the water from the third rinse was plated on 869 medium (25) to verify the efficiency of sterilization. After sterilization, the roots and shoots were macerated in 10 ml of 10 mM MgSO4 using a Polytron PT1200 mixer (Kinematica A6). Serial dilutions were made, and 100-μl samples were plated on nonselective media in order to test for the presence of the endophytes and their characteristics.
Enterobacter sp. 638 was isolated under aerobic conditions from surface-sterilized root and stem samples taken from hybrid poplar tree H11-11 and native willow (Salix gooddingii) that were grown in a silty loam soil with groundwater below it that was contaminated with carbon tetrachloride or trichloroethylene and carbon tetrachloride, respectively. Its total genomic DNA was extracted and used to amplify the 16 rRNA gene. 16S rRNA genes were PCR amplified using the standard 26F-1392R primer set (Amann, 1995)
Inocula (250-ml culture) were prepared by growing endophytic bacteria in 1/10-strength 869 medium (25) at 30° C. on a rotary shaker until a cell concentration of 109 CFU/ml was reached (optical density at 660 nm [OD660] of 1). The cells were collected by centrifugation, washed twice in 10 mM MgSO4, and suspended in 1/10 of the original volume (in 10 mM MgSO4) to obtain an inoculum with a cell concentration of 1010 CFU/ml. Per microbial strain tested, seven cuttings from poplar (Populus deltoides x P. nigra) DN-34 of approximately 30 cm were weighed and placed in a 1-liter beaker containing 0.5 liter of a half-strength sterile Hoagland's nutrient solution (5), which was refreshed every 3 days. The cuttings were allowed to root for approximately 4 weeks until root formation started. Subsequently, a bacterial inoculum was added to each jar at a final concentration of 108 CFU/ml in half-strength Hoagland's solution. After 3 days of incubation, cuttings were weighed and planted in nonsterile sandy soil and placed in the greenhouse with a constant temperature of 22° C. and 14 h light-10 h dark cycle with photosynthetic active radiation of 165 mmol/m2s. After 10 weeks, plants were harvested, and their total biomass, their increase in biomass, and the biomass of different plant tissues were determined. Data were also collected from non-inoculated control plants. Growth indexes were calculated as (Mt−M0)/M0 after 10 weeks of growth in the presence or absence of endophytic inoculum, where M0 is the plant's weight (g) at week 0 and Mt is the plant's weight (g) after 10 weeks. The statistical significance of the results was confirmed at the 5% level using the Dunnett test. To determine the effects of endophytic bacteria on the rooting of poplar DN-34, cuttings were treated as described above, except that the endophytic inoculum was added from day 1.
Enterobacter sp. 638 isolated from poplar was tested for its capacity to improve the growth of their host plants, along with other endophytic gammaproteobacteria found in poplar trees. Burkholderia cepacia Bu72, an endophyte originally isolated from yellow lupine which was found to have plant growth-promoting effects on poplar trees, and Cupriavidus metallidurans CH34 (also referred to as Ralstonia metallidurans CH34), a typical soil bacterium with no known plant growth promoting effects, were included as positive and negative controls, respectively. Also, non-inoculated cuttings were used as controls.
After root formation in hydroponic conditions and subsequent endophytic inoculation, the poplar DN-34 cuttings were planted in a marginal sandy soil and allowed to grow for 10 weeks, after which the plants were harvested and their biomasses were determined.
After 10 weeks of growth, poplar trees inoculated with M populi BJ001 had less new biomass than the controls (
Under the greenhouse conditions tested, no differences in growth indexes were found between those of the non-inoculated control plants and those for plants inoculated with S. maltophilia R551-3, P. putida W619, and S. proteamaculans 568; their growth was comparable to that observed for plants inoculated with C. metallidurans CH34. Also, control plants and plants inoculated with the endophytic bacteria appeared healthy, except for plants inoculated with M. populi BJ001, which showed signs of stress, including chlorosis of the leaves.
Because Nicotiana species are used in the laboratory as large-plant models for transformation and metabolite studies, it would be useful to be able to use such a plant for study, even if it is not useful for field applications. Nicotiana xanthi seedlings were started in soilless growing medium, and after development of primary leaves, were transferred to hydroponic solutions. After one week, plants were placed in solutions containing 108 CFU Enterobacter sp. 638. After 3 days, inoculums were refreshed, and after an additional three days, plants were placed in pots in the greenhouse.
Plant growth was monitored weekly, and time to onset of flowering was recorded. Plants reached full size more rapidly than non-inoculated plants, and the majority of plants were in flower one month before the same number of non-inoculated plants were in flower.
To further test the effects of endophytic bacteria on root development, rooting experiments were performed in the presence and absence of gfp-labeled derivatives of Enterobacter sp. 638. Root formation was very slow for non-inoculated plants. In contrast, for cuttings that were allowed to root in the presence of the selected endophytes, root formation was initiated within 1 week, and shoot formation was more pronounced compared to that of the non-inoculated plants (
To test the effect of the endophytic bacteria of mass of fruit production, tomato seeds (heirloom variety Brandywine, Park Seed) were started in a perlite/water matrix, and then transferred to a hydroponic solution of 1/2 strength Hoagland's solution. When plants were approximately 3 inches tall, they were transferred to solutions containing 108 CFUs per mL of endophytic bacteria as described above. Three days after inoculation, seedlings were planted in the greenhouse in ProMix, a commercial potting mix. Dates of first fruit set and total mass of tomatoes were recorded for three months. Tomato plants inoculated with Enterobacter 638 had a 10% increase in fruit productivity over non-inoculated plants. Non-inoculated plants produced 82 fruits with a total mass of 22.374kg, while the inoculated plants produced 90 fruits with a combined mass of 24.909 kg (
Sunflower seedlings (Mammoth, Park Seed) were started using the method described, and time to flowering was recorded. Under greenhouse conditions, inoculated sunflowers started flowering 5 days earlier than non-inoculated plants, and 50% were in flower while only 10% of the non-inoculated plants were flowering; 100% of the inoculated plants were flowering while only 70% of the non-inoculated plants were flowering (
Hybrid poplar hardwood cuttings (OP-367 Populus deltoides x P. nigra) were placed in water for three days to initiate root formation, and were then moved to a ½ strength Hoagland's solution containing 108 CFU per mL of endophytic bacteria for three days. Cuttings were then planted in pots containing garden soil and grown in the greenhouse for three months with surplus water supplied. After three months, watering of the plants was suspended, and time to senescence was monitored. Inoculated plants on average showed a 20% delay in the onset of drought symptoms, as compared to non-inoculated plants.
Due to the increased vigor of the plants, as well as genetic elements present in the endophytic bacteria, that inoculated plants will prove to be more resistant to pathogen colonization and that symptoms will be less evident on inoculated plants.
Hybrid poplar cuttings, both H11-11 (highly susceptible to fungal disease) and OP-367 (resistant to fungal disease) will both be inoculated as described. Plants will planted in sterile potting mix, and grown until six to eight leaves are present. Plants will then be exposed to fungal pathogens, and monitored for both time of onset and severity of physical symptoms of infection. Plants can also be analyzed to determine activity of known disease responsive genes.
The genome of the gamma-proteobacterium Enterobacter sp. 638 includes a single circular chromosome of 4,518,712 bp with an overall G+C content of 52.98%, and it includes a plasmid pENT638-1 of 157,749 bp, having an overall G+C content of 50.57% (Table 1). The chromosome of Enterobacter sp. 638 displays a GC skew transition, which corresponds with its replication origin (oriC) and terminus. The oriC site contains a perfect DnaA-binding box (TTATCCACA), which is located 31,985 bp upstream of the dnaA ATG start codon (at coordinate 4,487,245 bp).
The pENT638-1 plasmid displays, based on GC content, at least four distinct regions. The plasmid is includes an ancestral backbone, which is common to F-family plasmids and contains the plasmid's basic functions for transfer and replication, and of regions that were likely acquired via horizontal gene transfer. These regions in the pENT638-1 plasmid display a codon usage matrix different from the rest of the species of Enterobacteriaceae. In addition, these regions have no synteny to sequenced chromosomes or plasmids from closely related strains, and these regions interestingly encode genes related to plant adhesion and colonization. The stable maintenance in Enterobacter sp. 638 of pENT638-1 and these regions, which presumably play a role in the successful interaction between Enterobacter sp. 638 and its plant host, seems important regarding the presence of six relBE toxin/anti-toxin (TA) systems.
In contrast, the chromosome of Enterobacter sp. 638 encodes only three couples of toxin/anti-toxin (Ent638_0434-0435, Ent638_0476-0477, and Ent638_2066-2067). This low number is representative for host-associated organisms.
The chromosome encodes 4395 putative coding sequences (CDS) representing a coding density of 87.9%, and plasmid pENT638-1 encodes 153 putative CDS having a coding density of 80.4%. After their manual annotation, 3562 CDS (78.3%) could be assigned to a putative biological function, while 835 CDS (18.4%) were annotated as hypothetical proteins of unknown function. Conserved hypothetical proteins are represented by 684 CDS (15.0%), while 151 CDS (3.3%) had no homology to any previously reported sequence. Using the COGnitor module from the MaGe system, 3597 CDS (79.1%) could be assigned to one or more COG functional classes (see
The genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 encodes 8 Sigma factors:fliA (Ent638_2509; Sigma 28), three rpoE-like Sigma 24 (Ent638_3060, Ent638_3117 and Ent638_3389), rpoS (Ent638_3212, Sigma 38), rpoD (Ent638_3473, Sigma 70), rpoN (Ent638_3638, Sigma 54) and rpoH (Ent638_3865, Sigma 32).
Enterobacter sp. 638 encodes an active dam methylase involved in the adenine methylation at GATC sites, as was confirmed by MboI and Sau3AI digestion of the DNA, the first enzyme being unable to digest the methylated Enterobacter sp. 638 DNA.
On the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 one hundred palindromic repeats were found unevenly distributed over the chromosome. These hairpin loop forming repeats (with XX(X) mainly being TGT/ACA or AC/TG) are often located in duplicate or triplicate at the 3′ end of genes and presumably play a role in transcription termination.
Eight Insertion Sequence (IS) elements were found on the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638: two from the IS3/IS51 family (one composed of three ORFs with a frameshift (Ent638_0739, Ent638_0740, Ent638_0741) and one composed of a single ORF (Ent638_0060)), one IS element from the IS110 family (Ent638_1530), and three IS elements from the IS481 family (Ent638_2980, Ent638_3160 and Ent638_3288). Some of these IS elements are delimitating putative genomic islands (see section below).
Plasmid pENT638-1 possesses two complete IS elements, one from the Tn3 family composed of one ORF (Ent638_4224) and one from the IS3/IS407 family composed of two ORFs (Ent638_4320 and Ent638_4321), as well as two truncated transposases from the latter family. The complete IS and the truncated transposase from the IS3/IS407 families are flanking a large region encoding genes involved in plasmid maintenance and replication (sopAB, repA) and genes involved in plasmid transfer by conjugation (tra). This 75 kb region can be considered as the pENT638-1 backbone.
When comparing the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 with those of closely related strains, Enterobacter cancerogenus ATCC 35316 was determined to be the closest genome with 80.4% of the CDS in synteny with Enterobacter sp. 638, then Klebsiella pneumoniae 342 and MGH 78578 (both with 74% of the CDS in synteny), followed by Citrobacter koseri ATCC BAA-895 (73%) and then the Escherichia coli species (between 63 to 73%)
The specific adaptation of Enterobacter sp. 638 to its plant host was scrutinized through genome comparison with other plant associated microbes and the gastrointestinal bacterium E. coli K12 (MG1655). This strain, chosen as a reference organism because it is the best annotated bacterial genome, shared (criteria 80% of identity on 80% of the protein length) 2938 syntenic CDS (69.2% of their genome) with Enterobacter sp. 638. The syntenic regions are grouped in 304 syntons with an average number of 10.5 CDS per synton.
Fifty-six regions were identified on the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome, which were not in synteny with the genomes of closely related bacteria. Among them, eighteen regions met the criteria for putative genomic islands (highlight in grey in table 2). These genomic islands carry genes encoding proteins involved in sugar transport (PTS system), adhesion, pectate utilization, iron uptake trough siderophore receptors, nitrate reduction, pilus biosynthesis, as well as many others transporters and regulators. Region number 47 is an illustrative example of the acquisition of a genomic island containing genes involved in adaptation for an endophytic lifestyle. This region encodes a putative pectate transporter and degradation proteins, which may allow strain 638 to grow on pectate (an important plant synthesized compound) as a carbon source. This genomic island is flanked by an integrase gene and inserted into a tRNA-Gly site.
Eight phages and one putative integrated plasmid were found on the chromosome. A total of 302 phage proteins, including 18 putative integrase genes, were identified.
In addition, the Enterobacter sp. 638 chromosome contains a region with Clustered Regularly Interspaced Short Palindromic Repeats (CRISPR) located next to six genes (Ent638 1401-1406) encoding CRISPR-associated sequences (Cas). CRISPR are likely to provide acquired tolerance against bacteriophages. Six of the eight prophages arc flanking by regions, which lack synteny with the corresponding regions in closely related bacteria such as E. coli K12, 0157-H7 and UTI89, Klebsiella pneumoniae MGH 78578 or Citrobacter koseri BAA-895, and that may have been acquired through phage transduction. These regions contain genes important in bacteria/plant interactions such as amino-acid and iron/siderophore transporters, haemolysin (HCP), and a hemagglutinin protein and transporter (Table 2). Until now, the inter- or extra-cellular mobility of the genomic islands, phages and IS elements was not experimentally demonstrated.
In general, poplar is multiplied by cuttings, and since the number of endophytes in cuttings is very low, many species of endophytic bacteria have to survive in the soil prior to colonizing poplar. Enterobacter sp. 638 is well adapted to survive in the plant rhizosphere because it encodes many transporters involved in carbohydrate, amino-acids and iron uptake, as well as some heavy metal resistance genes. Most of the metabolic pathways described below were confirmed by cultivating strain 638 under selective growth conditions (Taghavi et al. 2009).
Carbohydrate metabolism
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome encodes all the pathways for central metabolism, including the tricarboxylic acid cycle, the Entner-Doudoroff, the EmbdenMeyerhof-Parnas and the pentose-phosphate pathways. The strain is unable to grow autotrophically, but can use a large variety of compounds as carbon sources: D-mannitol, lactose, sucrose, arbutin, salicin, trehalose, D-mannose, L-arabinose, maltose, cellobiose, xylose, gluconate and glucose (Taghavi et al. 2009). Enterobacter sp. 638 possesses a lactase (lacZ, Ent638_0928), a xylose isomerase (Ent638_0156) and a xylulokinase (Ent638_0157). Lactose utilization as a sole carbon source is a characteristic of the Enterobacteriaceae. Enterobacter sp. 638 has the genetic capability to grow on malonate, it genome contains a cluster of nine genes (mdcABCDEFGHR, Ent638_3779-Ent638_3772) involved in malonate decarboxylation that catalyze the conversion of malonate into acetate.
The diversity of sugar utilization might be related to the diversity of glycoside hydrolases. The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome carries 55 genes coding putative glycoside hydrolases, representing 24 different families (CAZy database). In contrast, it should also be mentioned that the human pathogen Enterobacter sakazakii possesses 63 glycoside hydrolases (CAZy database).
Plant pathogenic bacteria and fungi gain access by actively degrading plant cell wall compounds using glycoside hydrolases including cellulases/endoglucanases (including members of the glycoside hydrolase families GH5, GH9, GH44, GH48 and GH74), lichenases (GH16) and xylanases (GH10, GH11). No glycoside hydrolases representing putative members of endo-, exo-, cellulase and hemicellulase families commonly used to break down plant cell wall polymers were encoded on the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome. This observation is consistent with the non phytopathogenic behaviour of Enterobacter sp. 638. However, it should be noted that two endo-1,4-D-gluconases (GH8) (bcsZ: Ent638_3928, Ent638_3936) were found as part of a bacterial cellulose synthesis locus.
Uptake of Plant Nutrients
Organisms living in symbiotic association, like Enterobacter sp. 638 and its poplar host, for example, need to share resources, therefore, it is expected that the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 encodes a large diversity of transporters that will allow it to take up plant-released nutrients. A total of 631 ORFs encode for putative transporter proteins: among them 295 encoded ABC transporters (including one phosphate transporter), 81 encoded transporters from the major facilitator superfamily (MFS), 41 encoded transporters from the phosphotransferase system family (PTS) and 14 encoded transporters from the resistance nodulation and cell division family (RND) (see complete list of putative transporters and their substrates in SOM). This observation is consistent with the plant associated life style of Enterobacter sp. 638, which requires efficient uptake of plant synthesized nutrients, including those released into the rhizosphere.
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome encodes many PTS transporters. Phylogenetic analysis was used to assign substrate specificity to the Enterobacter sp. 638 PTS transporters: 7 belonged to the α-glucosides (for uptake of glucose, N-acetylglucosamine, maltose, glucosamine and α-glucosides), 7 to the β-glucosides (for uptake of sucrose, trehalose, N-acetylmuramic acid and β-glucosides), 2 were fructose PTS transporters (for uptake of fructose, mannitol, mannose and 2-O-α-mannosyl D-glycerate) and 6 were lactose PTS transporters (for uptake of lactose, cellobiose and aromatic β-glucosides).
Resistance to Heavy Metals
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome carries genes putatively involved in copper resistance, including a P-type ATPase CopA (Ent638_0962) whose expression is regulated by CueR (Ent638_09630), the copper efflux operon cusABCF (Ent638_1157-1154), the multiple copper oxidase CueO (Ent638_0671), and an operon coding for the putative CopC and CopD copper resistance proteins (Ent638_2411-12). Interestingly, the strain failed to grow on 284 glucose minimal medium in the presence of 100 μM Cu(NO3)2.
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome also encodes an arsenic/arsenate resistance cluster that was found next to the origin of replication of plasmid pENT638-1 (arsHRBC, Ent638_4254-Ent638_4257), and strain 638 was found to grow successfully on 284 glucose minimal medium in the presence of 200 μM arsenate (as Na2HAsO4).
The presence of arsenate and putative copper resistance genes is not unexpected, as Enterobacter sp. 638 was isolated from poplar growing in the area which was impacted by emissions from the ASARCO smelter in Tacoma, Wash., a copper smelter that during operations from 1905 through 1982 was considered to be one of the largest arsenic emission sources in the USA.
Other heavy metal resistance genes located on the chromosome include a putative chromate reductase (YieF or ChrR, Ent638_4144) and a P-type efflux ATPase ZntA (Ent638_3873) involved in zinc/cadmium/cobalt resistance. Strain 638 was able to grow on 284 glucose minimal medium in the presence of 500 μM ZnSO4, 500 μM CdCl2, 100 μM CoCl2, and 50 μM NiCl2. Although it could be argued that these genes are also present in other E. coli species, their presence may be enough to provide a selective advantage over other bacteria to survive in the rhizosphere, especially when these metals are present.
Heavy metals are also important cofactors, and the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome encodes several genes involved in heavy metal uptake and efflux. Genes were found for ABC transporters involved in zinc (znuACB, Ent638_2426-2428) and nickel (nikABCDE, Ent638_1834-Ent638_1838) uptake. Nickel is an essential cofactor for urease (Dosanjh et al. 2007), and unlike E. coli K12 and S. proteamaculans 568, Enterobacter sp. 638 is able to convert urea into ammonia (ureABC, Ent638_3464-Ent638_3466).
Oxidative Stress, Counteracting the Plant's Defense Mechanism
Plants use a variety of defense mechanisms against bacterial, viral and fungal infections, including the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) (superoxide, hydroperoxyl radical, hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radical species), nitric oxide and phytoalexins. Prior to root colonization, strain 638 has to survive in an oxidative rhizosphere environment. The Enterobacter sp. 638 chromosome encodes three superoxide dismutases: SodA, a Mn superoxide dismutase (Ent638_4063); SodB a Fe superoxide dismutase (Ent638_1191); and SodC, a Cu/Zn superoxide dismutase (Ent638_1801). It also contains three catalases, KatE (Ent638_1712), KatN (Ent638_3129) and KatG (Ent638_4032), three hydroperoxide reductases, ahpC (Ent638_0872 and Ent638_1145) and ahpF (Ent638_1146), two additional hydroperoxide reductases (a putative ahpC Ent638_3391 and Ent638_0498 having an AhpD domain), a chloroperoxidase (Ent638_1149), and two thiol peroxidases (Ent638_2151 and Ent638_2976).
We also identified a putative organic peroxide resistance protein (ohr, Ent638_0518) located next to its organic peroxide sensor/regulator (ohrR, Ent638_0519).
Enterobacter sp. 638 seems able to detoxify free radical nitric oxide by the presence of a flavohemoprotein nitric oxide dioxygenase (Ent638_3037) and an anaerobic nitrate reduction operon (nor RVW, Ent638_3181-3183). The expression of the oxidative stress response systems is controlled via complex regulatory networks. A key regulator is the hydrogen-peroxide sensor OxyR (Ent638_4025), which activates the expression of a regulon of hydrogen peroxide-inducible genes such as katG, gor (glutathione reductase, Ent638_3913), ahpC, ahpF, oxyS (a regulatory RNA, Ent638_misc_RNA_29), dpsA (a DNA protection during starvation protein, Ent638_1299), fur (a DNA-binding transcriptional dual regulator of siderophore biosynthesis and transport, Ent638_1198) and grxA (glutaredoxin, Ent638_1364), all of which are present in Enterobacter sp. 638. Three glutathione S-transferase (GST) genes (Ent638_0139, Ent638_0268 and Ent638_1329), a glutathione ABC transporter (GsiABCD, Ent638_1323-1326), two glutathione peroxidase (Ent638_1732 and Ent638_2699), a gamma-glutamate-cysteine ligase (GshA, Ent638_3168), glutathione synthetase (GshB, Ent638_3351) and gamma-glutamyltranspeptidase (GGT, Ent638_3850) were found on the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638. An AcrAB (Ent638_0943-0944) locus, belonging to RND family of transporters was also identified on the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome.
Endophytic colonization of a plant host can be divided into four step process (van der Lelie et al. 2009).
Step 1: Moving Toward the Poplar Roots: Motility/Chemiotaxis
Enterobacter sp. 638 is well equipped to actively move towards plant roots, the preferred site of endophytic colonization. Its genome contains three flagellar biosynthesis operons (flgNMABCDEFGHIJKL, flhEAB fimA yralJ lpfD cheZYBR tap tar csuEDCAB int cheWA motBA flhCD fliYZA fliCDSTEFGHJKLMNOPQR, Ent638_2445-2541 and fliEFHIJKLMNOPQR).
However, the flh operon of Enterobacter sp. 638 contains two insertions of pili biosynthesis genes. One of these regions (csu) is flanked by an integrase, pointing to later acquisition. Enterobacter sp. 638 also has a large number of pilus/fimbriae biosynthesis genes (at least 60 genes). In Enterobacter sp. 638, the pilus/fimbriae biosynthesis genes are grouped in 10 distinct regions. Determinants involved in chemiotaxis (che) were also discovered inside the flagellar biosynthesis gene cluster.
Step 2 and 3: Adhesion and Colonization of the Roots Surface
In Enterobacter sp. 638, several genes were identified encoding proteins involved in the putative adhesion to the root. Many are located on genomic islands or on plasmid pENT638-1, pointing towards a specific role of this plasmid during this step of the plant root colonization. In particular, pENT638-1 contains a 23 kb putative genomic island (flanked by an integrase gene, and having a GC % of 56.2, which is significantly higher that the rest of the plasmid), as well as a putative srfABC operon. The exact function of the srfABC operon remains unclear, but it is believed to be involved in host colonization.
Many other genes involved in plant invasion are present on pENT638-1, and include putative proteins with an autrotransporter domain (secretion type V) and a virulence/adhesion domain (hemagglutinin (Ent638_4267), pertactin (Ent638 4201 and Ent638 4206) and adhesion (Ent638 4317)).
Hemagglutinin: The chromosome of Enterobacter sp. 638 encodes two putative hemagglutinin proteins (Ent638_0148, Ent638_3119), and a cluster composed of five genes encoding for filamentous hemagglutinin (Ent638_0052-0057).
In addition, several genes were found on the chromosome of Enterobacter sp. 638 encoding for autotransporter proteins with a pectin lyase/pertactin domain (Ent638_1775, Ent638_0318, Ent638_0501), or an adhesion domain (Ent638_1867, Ent638_3408).
The two Enterobacter sp. 638 yadA genes (Ent638_1867 and Ent638_4317) both encode a protein with an autotransporter domain and an invasin/adhesion domain. The YadA protein might promote plant colonization/invasion, but could also represent a remnant of an ancient enteric lifestyle.
The hemagglutinin gene on pENT638-1 (Ent638_4267) is surrounded by two RelB/E toxin/anti-toxin systems. It is hypothesized that the Ent638_4267 hemagglutinin must play an important role in root adhesion for been stabilized in this way on the pENT638-1. Together with the hemagglutinin gene Ent638_4267, two genes (Ent638_4265-4266) coding for a protein containing a tetratricopeptide (TPR-2) repeat domain were identified, putatively involved in protein-protein interaction and the correct assembly of the adhesion apparatus.
Type I and IV pili: Six putative usher proteins were found on the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome (Ent638_0084, Ent638_0403, Ent638_0990, Ent638_1071, Ent638_2450, and Ent638_2459). This number is much higher than the average number of usher proteins found in other genera of plant associated bacteria.
On the chromosome of Enterobacter sp. 638, 56 genes involved in pili/curli/fimbriae biosynthesis were identified, including 6 clusters of type-I pili biosynthesis genes (Ent638_0074-0086, Ent638_0401-0409, Ent638_0987-0994, Ent638_1068-1072, Ent638_2448-2451, Ent638_2458-2462). The last two clusters are flanked and separated by genes involved in chemiotaxis and motility (flagellar biosynthesis) (see section motility), and are possibly involved in biofilm formation on abiotic surfaces. This region (Ent638_2445-2541) represents a nice example of clustering genes involved in different aspects of plant roots colonization (chemiotaxis, motility, and adhesion).
Type IV pili. On the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome, two clusters of type-IV pili biosynthesis genes were identified, (Ent638_0650-0652, and Ent638_3266-3268), as well as a cluster of putative uncharacterized pilus biosynthesis genes (Ent638_3804 and Ent638_3808) that are possibly involved in DNA uptake.
Curli fibers. Structurally and biochemically, curli belongs to a growing class of fibers known as amyloids. On the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638, one cluster for curli biosynthesis (Ent638_1553-1559) was identified.
Cellulose Biosynthesis
Consistent with its non pathogenic behavior the genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 does not encode proteins involved in cellulose degradation. However, an operon responsible for cellulose biosynthesis was identified (Ent638_3927-3940).
Virulence
Microsopic studies showed that Enterobacter sp. 638 colonizes the root xyleme between the lumen of the lenticels; no intracellular colonization was observed (Taghavi et al. 2009).
Although Enterobacter sp. 638 was never found to act as an opportunistic pathogen in plant colonization studies, its genome codes for several proteins putatively involved in virulence. It should be noted that virulence may also require close interaction between the bacterium and its host, similar to what may be required for endophytic colonization. One gene (ygfA, Ent638_3317) coding for an inner membrane hemolysin (family III), a partial CDS (Ent638_0251) containing a putative hemolysin domain, and three genes hcp coding for virulence factors (Ent638_0829, Ent638_2912 and Ent638_3004) were identified.
Other putative virulence factors include pagC (Ent638_3136) and msgA (Ent638_1656), which are required for virulence and survival within macrophages, and putative virK genes (Ent638_1394 and Ent638_2409), whose product is required for the expression and correct membrane localization of VirG (Ent638_3560) on the bacterial cell surface.
However, no genes encoding for a type III secretion system, which is a prerequisite for an active virulent life style typical for pathogens such as Erwinia and P. syringae, were identified on the Enterobacter sp. 638 genome.
Finally, similar to the pENT638-1 plasmid, a srfABC operon (Ent638_2108-Ent638_2110) was found on the Enterobacter sp. 638 chromosomes. The function of these genes in endophytic behavior remains unclear.
Step 4: Invasion of the Root and in Planta Establishment Via Active Colonization
Enterbacter sp. 638 may enter the plant roots at sites of tissues damage because its genome sequence does not encode endo/exo-cellulases or hemicellulases that would allow endophytic colonization via the active breakdown of plant cell walls.
Pectin/Pectate Degradation
Although Enterobacter sp. 638 is not able to grow on pectin (poly(1,4-alpha-D-galacturonate)) as a sole carbon source, its genome contains a genomic island encoding the genes involved in the degradation of pectate, the demethylated backbone of pectin and a constituent of the plant cell wall. The ability of Enterobacter sp. 638 to degrade pectate could play a role in colonizing the interspatial region between plant cells.
A secreted pectate lyase, PelB, involved in the cleavage of pectate into oligosaccharides with 4-deoxy-alpha-D-galact-4-enuronosyl groups at their non-reducing ends was found next to an oligogalacturonate-specific porin, KdgM, involved in the uptake of oligogalacturonides into the periplasm. A periplasmic pectinase, PelX, encoded by a different region of the genome, is involved in periplasmic degradation of oligogalacturonide.
On another region, a carbohydrate uptake ABC transporter, TogMNAB, involved in the translocation of oligogalacturonide across the inner membrane and several additional proteins, Ogl, KduI and KduD, involved in the degradation of oligogalacturonide into 2-dehydro-3-deoxy-D-gluconate, were identified. KdgK and KdgA, involved in D-glucuronate metabolism, further degrade 2-dehydro-3-deoxy-D-gluconate into pyruvate and 3-phosphoglyceraldehyde, both compounds of the general cellular metabolism. This region, which is flanked by a transposase from the IS481 family, might have been acquired via horizontal gene transfer. The proteins UxaA, UxaB, and UxaC, necessary for the alternative pathway to degrade galacturonate into 2-dehydro-3-deoxy-D-gluconate, are also encoded by the Enterobacter sp. 638 chromosome. The degradation of pectate has to be well regulated in order to avoid a pathogenic effect.
Plasmid pENT638-1 carries two neighboring genes (Ent638_4201, Ent638_4206) encoding for autrotransporter proteins with a pectin lyase domain. These proteins may be involved in the adhesion of Enterobacter sp. 638 to the poplar roots or as part of a colonization mechanism that involves the export of enzymes able to lyse the cell walls of root cells. Between these two genes, two component transcriptional regulators were identified, suggesting a tight regulation, as well as two additional genes involved in capsular polysaccharide biosynthesis (Ent638_4207) and encoding for a glycosyl transferase (Ent638_4208). Cell surface lipopolysaccharides (LPS) have been hypothesized of being involved in host specificity, and the proximity of these genes suggests a collaborative role in plant invasion by Enterobacter sp. 638.
The pENT638-1 Plasmid Cellobiose Phosphorylase
On plasmid pENT638-1, the ndvB gene (8532 bp) located next to the plasmid's origin of replication encodes a protein involved in the production of β-(1->2)-glucan. The membrane bound NdvB protein catalyzes three enzymatic activities: the initiation (protein glucosylation), elongation, and cyclization in situ of β-(1->2)-glucan, which is then released into the periplasm.
Indirect Plant Growth Promoting Effects
Nitrogen Fixation and Metabolism
Enterobacter sp. 638 is unable to fix nitrogen and lacks the required nif genes. However, it contains the genes required for dissimilatory and assimilatory nitrate reduction pathways. The nitrate transport and nitrate/nitrite reduction genes are present within two operons (narIJHGKXL and nasAB ntrCBA nasR, Ent638_2312-Ent638_2326) separated by an integrase and a putative adhesion/invasion gene. Others regions involved in nitrite transport and reduction (nirBDC, Ent638_3793-3795), nitrate transport and reduction (narUZYWV, Ent638_2061-Ent638_2065), and an ammonium uptake transporter (amtB, Ent638_0919) and its regulator (Ent638_0918), as well as the nitrate/nitrite sensor protein (narQ, Ent638_2964) were also found on its chromosome.
Siderophores
Enterobacter sp. 638 has developed an intermediate solution to deal with iron uptake. Its genome contains two ferrous iron uptake systems (FeoAB, EfeUOB) and nine iron ABC transporters.
Enterobacter sp. 638 is able to synthesize the siderophore enterobactin (EntD, EntF, EntC, EntE, EntB and EntA), to secrete it (EntS), to recover the iron-enterobactin complex using a ferric siderophore uptake system (ExbDB), and to extract the iron using an enterobactin esterase (Fes) after internalization of the iron-enterobactin complex. The genes involved in this biosynthesis of enterobactin are grouped together with genes encoding two ABC transporters involved in iron uptake (sitABCD and fepCGDB) in a large cluster of 17 genes (Ent638_1111-1128). Furthermore, Enterobacter sp. 638 possesses 12 outer membrane ferric and ferric-related siderophore receptors (TonB dependent), which is almost double of the number found in E. coli K12 (that only possesses 7 siderophore receptors). This observation is consistent for a bacterium that needs to compete for iron. The presence of an efficient iron uptake system can therefore contribute to protect the host plant against fungal infection.
Antimicrobial Compounds
Enterobacter sp. 638 was shown to constitutively produce phenylethylalcohol. This molecule, which is commonly used in perfumery, gives Enterobacter sp. 638 a pleasant floral odor, but more interestingly has antimicrobial properties. Two candidate genes (Ent638_1306 and Ent638_1876) encode an enzyme putatively involved in the conversion phenyl-acetaldehyde into phenylethylalcohol. These two genes are located on regions not syntenic with other closely related strains.
4-hydroxybenzoate is a precursor of the important electron carrier ubiquinone, but is also known to have antimicrobial activity. Enterobacter sp. 638 possesses the ubiC (Ent638_0243) gene that codes for the putative protein able to perform this reaction.
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome encodes a chloramphenicol acetyltransferase (cat, Ent638_1533) involved in chloramphenicol resistant and that may help the bacteria to be survive against the antimicrobial compounds produced by other endophytic or rhizospheric organisms.
1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase
The 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase (acd), (EC: 3.5.99.7) is absent from the Enterobacter 638 genome, which confirms previous studies that the strain is unable to metabolize ACC (Taghavi et al. 2009). However, amino acid deaminase was found, but they all lack the particular amino-acids E 296 and L 323 (respectively replaced by a T or S and a T) that approach the pyridine nitrogen atom of PLP in the active site to.
Production of the Roots Growth Promoting Hormones Acetoin, and 2,3-Butanediol
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome carries the gene poxB (Ent638_1387) encoding a pyruvate dehydrogenase. While the principal function of PoxB is to convert pyruvate into acetaldehyde, a small fraction of the pyruvate is converted to acetoin, as a by-product of the hydroxyethyl-thiamin diphosphate reaction intermediate.
The Enterobacter sp. 638 genome encodes an acetolactate synthase (budB, Ent638_2027) involved in the conversion of pyruvate to acetolactate. The acetoin decarboxylase (budA, Ent638_2026) catalyzes the conversion of acetolactate into acetoin. Acetoin can be released by the bacteria or subsequently converted into 2,3-butanediol by the acetoin reductase (budC, Ent638_2028) either by Enterobacter sp. 638 or by the poplar. Under aerobic condition, acetolactate is spontaneously converted into diacetyl, which in turn can be converted into acetoin by the acetoin dehydrogenase protein (Ent638_2737).
The biosynthesis of volatile compounds by Enterobacter sp. 638 and their induction by the addition of poplar leaf extracts was investigated via mass spectrometry. The production of 2,3-butandiol and acetoin was seen for samples containing Enterobacter sp. 638 and poplar leaf extract beginning 12 hours after induction (
The genome of Enterobacter sp. 638 lacks the genes (acoABCX adh) involved in the catabolic conversion of acetoin and 2,3-butanediol to central metabolites. Therefore there is no antagonistic effect between the production and the degradation of these plant growth hormones by Enterobacter sp. 638.
Production of the Plant Growth Hormone IAA
The production of indole acetic acid (IAA) by Enterobacter sp. 638 was experimentally demonstrated (Taghavi et al. 2009). IAA biosynthesis is likely through the production of indolepyruvate as an intermediate molecule by the tryptophane degradation pathway VII (aromatic amino acid aminotransferase, Ent638_1447). The indolpyruvate decarboxylase IpdC (Ent638_2923) and the putative indole-3-acetaldehyde dehydrogenases (Ent638_0143) further catalyze IAA synthesis.
While there have been described what are presently believed to be the preferred embodiments of the invention, those skilled in the art will realize that changes and modifications may be made thereto without departing from the spirit of the invention, and it is intended to claim all such changes and modifications as full within the true scope of the invention as set forth in the appended claims.
Enterobacter
K. pneumoniae, E. coli UTI89)
E. coli
E. carotovora
K. pneumoniae
This application is a U.S. National Phase of, and Applicants claim priority from, International Application No. PCT/US11/27842 filed on Mar. 10, 2011, which claims benefit of U.S. Provisional Application Ser. No. 61/313,415 filed on Mar. 12, 2010, which is incorporated herein by reference in its entirety.
This invention was made with Government support under contract number DE-AC02-98CH10886, awarded by the U.S. Department of Energy. The Government has certain rights in the invention.
| Filing Document | Filing Date | Country | Kind | 371c Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| PCT/US2011/027842 | 3/10/2011 | WO | 00 | 1/3/2013 |
| Publishing Document | Publishing Date | Country | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| WO2011/112781 | 9/15/2011 | WO | A |
| Number | Name | Date | Kind |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20090105076 | Stewart et al. | Apr 2009 | A1 |
| Number | Date | Country |
|---|---|---|
| WO-2008156380 | Dec 2008 | WO |
| Entry |
|---|
| Taghavi et al., Genome Survey and Characterization of Endophytic Bacteria Exhibiting a Beneficial Effect on Growth and Development of Poplar Trees, Dec. 5, 2008, Applied and Enviromental Microbiology, vol. 75 iss. 3, pp. 748-757. |
| Aroca et al., Induction of Plant Tolerance to Semi-arid Environments by Beneficial Microorganisms—A Review, 2009, Sustainable Agriculture Reviews, pp. 121-135. |
| Aroca et al., “Induction of Plant Tolerance to Semi-arid Environments by Beneficial Soil Microorganisms—A Review”, Aug. 21, 2009, Springer, vol. 2, pp. 121-135. |
| Holmes, A., et al., “Comparison of Two Multimetal Resistant Bacterial Strains: Enterobacter sp. YSU and Stenotrophomonas maltophila ORO2,” Current Microbiology, vol. 59, No. 5, pp. 526-531, 2009. |
| Rogers, A., et al. “Inoculation of Hybrid Poplar with the Endophytic Bacterium Enterobacter sp. 638 Increases Biomass but does not Impact Leaf Level Physiology,” GCB Bioenergy, vol. 4, pp. 364-370, 2012. |
| Saleh, S., et al., “Involvement of gacS and rpoS in enhancement of the plant growth-promoting capabilities of Enterobacter cloacae CAL2 and UW4,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 47, No. 8, pp. 698-705, 2001, [online] [Retrieved Dec. 20, 2013] from the internet <URL: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/loi/cjm?open=2001#id_2001>. |
| Shah, S., et al., “Isolation and characterization of ACC deaminase genes from two different plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, vol. 44, No. 9, pp. 833-843, 1998, [online] [Retrieved Dec. 20, 2013] from the internet <URL: http://www.nrcresearchpress.com/loi/cjm?open=2001#id_1998>. |
| Taghavi, S., et al., “Genome Sequence of the Plant Growth Promoting Endophytic Bacterium Enterobacter sp. 638,” PLOS Genetics, vol. 6, Issue 5, pp. 1-15, 2010. |
| Wang, E., et al., “Diverse endophytic bacteria isolated from a leguminous tree Conzattia multiflora grown in Mexico,” Archives of Microbiology, vol. 186, No. 4, pp. 251-259, 2006. |
| Asghar, H.N. et al., “Screening rhizobacteria for improving the growth, yield, and oil content of canola (Brassica napus L.),” Australian Journal of Agricultural Research, 2004; 55(2): p. 187-194. |
| Belimov, A.A. et al., “Cadmium-tolerant plant growth-promoting bacteria associated with the roots of Indian mustard (Brassica juncea L. Czern.),” Soil Biol. Biochem., 2005; 37: p. 241-250. |
| Bent, E. et al., “Alterations in plant growth and in root hormone levels of lodgepole pines inoculated with rhizobacteria,” Can. J. Microbiol., 2001; 47: p. 793-800. |
| Bertagnolli, B.L. et al., “Extracellular enzyme profiles of the fungal pathogen Rhizoctonia solani isolate 2B-12 and of two antagonists, Bacillus megatherium strain B153-2-2 and Trichoderma harzianum isolate Th008. I. Possible correlations with inhibition of growth and biocontrol,” Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 1996; 48(3): p. 145-160. |
| Buyer, J. et al., “Iron Transport-mediated Antagonism between Plant Growth-promoting and Plant-deleterious Pseudomonas Strains,” Journal of Biological Chemistry, 1986; 261(2): p. 791-794. |
| Buyer, J. et al., “Structure of Pseudobactin A214, a Siderophore from a Bean-Deleterious Pseudomonas,” Biochemistry, 1986; 25(19): p. 5492-5499. |
| Cho, S.M. 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,” MPMI vol. 21, No. 8, 2008; p. 1067-1075. |
| Dell'Amico, E. et al., “Analysis of rhizobacterial communities in perennial Graminaceae from polluted water meadow soil, and screening of metal-resistant, potentially plant growth-promoting bacteria,” FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2005; 52(2): p. 153, 162. |
| Doty, S.L., “Enhancing phytoremediation through the use of transgenics and endophytes,” New Phytologist, 2008; 179(2); p. 318-333. |
| Dowling, D.N. et al., “Metabolites of Pseudomonas involved in the biocontrol of plant disease,” Trends in Biotechnology, 1994; 12(4): p. 133-141. |
| Garcia De Salamone, I.E. et al. “Cytokinin production by plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and selected mutants,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2001; 47(5): p. 404-411. |
| Goddijn, O. et al., “Sensing trehalose biosynthesis in plants,” Plant Journal, 1998; 14(2): p. 143-146. |
| James, E.K., “Nitrogen fixation in endophytic and associative symbiosis,” Field Crops Research, 2000; 65(2-3); p. 197-209. |
| Jeun, Y.C. et al., “Cytological observations of cucumber plants during induced resistance elicited by rhizobacteria,” Biological Control, 2004; 29(1): p. 34-42. |
| Kloepper, J.W. et al., “Induced Systemic Resistance and Promotion of Plant Growth by Bacillus spp.,” Phytopathology, 2004; 94(11): p. 1259-1266. |
| Krechel, A. et al., “Potato-associated bacteria and their antagonistic potential towards plant-pathogenic fungi and the plant-parasitic nematode Meloidogyne incognito (Kofoid & White) Chitwood,” Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 2002; 48(9): p. 772-786. |
| O'Sullivan, D. et al., “Traits of Fluorescent Pseudomonas spp. Involved in Suppression of Plant Root Pathogens,” Microbiological Reviews, 1992. 56(4): p. 662-676. |
| Ramos-Gonzales, M.I. et al., “Analysis of Pseudomonas putida KT2440 Gene Expression in the Maize Rhizosphere: In Vitro Expression Technology Capture and Identification of Root-Activated Promoters,” Journal of Bacteriology, 2005; 187(12): p. 4033-4041. |
| Ryan, R.P. et al., “The versatility and adaptation of bacteria from the genus Stenotrophomonas,” Nature Reviews Microbiology, 2009; 7(7): p. 514-525. |
| Ryu, C.M. et al., “Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria systemically protect Arabidopsis thaliana against Cucumber mosaic virus by a salicylic acid and NPR1-independent and jasmonic acid-dependent signaling pathway,” Plant Journal, 2004; 39(3): p. 381-392. |
| Spencer, M. et al., “Induced defence in tobacco by Pseudomonas chlororaphis strain O6 involves at least the ethylene pathway,” Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology, 2003; 63(1): p. 27-34. |
| Taghavi, S. et al., “Genome Survey and Characterization of Endophytic Bacteria Exhibiting a Beneficial Effect on Growth and Development of Poplar Trees,” App Environ Microbiol, 2009 75(3): p. 748-757. |
| Van Loon, L.C. et al., “Systemic Resistant Induced by Rhizosphere Bacteria,” Annual Review of Phytopathology, 1998; 36: p. 453-483. |
| Weyens, N. et al., “Colonization and plant growth promoting capacity of the endophyte Pseudomonas putida W619 after inoculation in hybrid poplar,” FEMS Microbiol. Ecol., 2009; submitted for publication (not attached). |
| Zhang, S. et al., “Tobacco growth enhancement and blue mold disease protection by rhizobacteria: Relationship between plant growth promotion and systemic disease protection by PGPR strain 90-166,” Plant and Soil, 2004; 262 (1-2): p. 277-288. |
| Weyens, N. et al., “Exploiting plant-microbe partnerships to improve biomass production and remediation”, Trends in Biotechnology, Elsevier Publications, Cambridge, GB, vol. 27, No. 10, pp. 591-598 (not attached). |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20130150240 A1 | Jun 2013 | US |
| Number | Date | Country | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 61313415 | Mar 2010 | US |
