Research article

Diversity and biological activity of culturable endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (Calendula officinalis L.)

  • Received: 23 July 2021 Accepted: 09 September 2021 Published: 13 September 2021
  • Endophytes colonizing plant tissue play an essential role in plant growth, development, stress tolerance and plant protection from soil-borne diseases. In this study, we report the diversity of cultivable endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) by using 16S rRNA gene analysis and their plant beneficial properties. A total of 42 bacterial isolates were obtained from plant tissues of marigold. They belonged to the genera Pantoea, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Achromobacter, Xanthomonas, Rathayibacter, Agrobacterium, Pseudoxanthomonas, and Beijerinckia. Among the bacterial strains, P. kilonensis FRT12, and P. rhizosphaerae FST5 showed moderate or vigorous inhibition against three tested plant pathogenic fungi, F. culmorum, F. solani and R. solani. They also demonstrated the capability to produce hydrolytic enzymes and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA). Five out of 16 isolates significantly stimulated shoot and root growth of marigold in a pot experiment. The present study reveals that more than half of the bacterial isolates associated with marigold (C. officinalis L.) provided antifungal activity against one or more plant pathogenic fungi. Our findings suggest that medicinal plants with antimicrobial activity could be a source for selecting microbes with antagonistic activity against fungal plant pathogens or with plant growth stimulating potential. These isolates might be considered as promising candidates for the improvement of plant health.

    Citation: Vyacheslav Shurigin, Burak Alaylar, Kakhramon Davranov, Stephan Wirth, Sonoko Dorothea Bellingrath-Kimura, Dilfuza Egamberdieva. Diversity and biological activity of culturable endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (Calendula officinalis L.)[J]. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(3): 336-353. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021021

    Related Papers:

    [1] Ananya Mukherjee, Puja Bhattacharjee, Rituparna Das, Arundhati Pal, Amal K. Paul . Endophytic bacteria with plant growth promoting abilities from Ophioglossum reticulatum L.. AIMS Microbiology, 2017, 3(3): 596-612. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2017.3.596
    [2] Yulduzkhon Abdullaeva, Gulsanam Mardonova, Farkhod Eshboev, Massimiliano Cardinale, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Harnessing chickpea bacterial endophytes for improved plant health and fitness. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(3): 489-506. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024024
    [3] Rudoviko Galileya Medison, Litao Tan, Milca Banda Medison, Kenani Edward Chiwina . Use of beneficial bacterial endophytes: A practical strategy to achieve sustainable agriculture. AIMS Microbiology, 2022, 8(4): 624-643. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2022040
    [4] Hemant Sharma, Arun Kumar Rai, Divakar Dahiya, Rajen Chettri, Poonam Singh Nigam . Exploring endophytes for in vitro synthesis of bioactive compounds similar to metabolites produced in vivo by host plants. AIMS Microbiology, 2021, 7(2): 175-199. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2021012
    [5] Gulsanam Mardonova, Vyacheslav Shurigin, Farkhod Eshboev, Dilfuza Egamberdieva . Potential plant benefits of endophytic microorganisms associated with halophyte Glycyrrhiza glabra L.. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(4): 859-879. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024037
    [6] Shubhra Singh, Douglas J. H. Shyu . Perspective on utilization of Bacillus species as plant probiotics for different crops in adverse conditions. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(1): 220-238. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024011
    [7] Elisa Gamalero, Bernard R. Glick . Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria to facilitate phytoremediation. AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 415-448. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024021
    [8] Vyacheslav Shurigin, Li Li, Burak Alaylar, Dilfuza Egamberdieva, Yong-Hong Liu, Wen-Jun Li . Plant beneficial traits of endophytic bacteria associated with fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.). AIMS Microbiology, 2024, 10(2): 449-467. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2024022
    [9] Alaa Fathalla, Amal Abd el-mageed . Salt tolerance enhancement Of wheat (Triticum Asativium L) genotypes by selected plant growth promoting bacteria. AIMS Microbiology, 2020, 6(3): 250-271. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2020016
    [10] Napapohn Kajadpai, Jirameth Angchuan, Pannida Khunnamwong, Nantana Srisuk . Diversity of duckweed (Lemnaceae) associated yeasts and their plant growth promoting characteristics. AIMS Microbiology, 2023, 9(3): 486-517. doi: 10.3934/microbiol.2023026
  • Endophytes colonizing plant tissue play an essential role in plant growth, development, stress tolerance and plant protection from soil-borne diseases. In this study, we report the diversity of cultivable endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) by using 16S rRNA gene analysis and their plant beneficial properties. A total of 42 bacterial isolates were obtained from plant tissues of marigold. They belonged to the genera Pantoea, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Achromobacter, Xanthomonas, Rathayibacter, Agrobacterium, Pseudoxanthomonas, and Beijerinckia. Among the bacterial strains, P. kilonensis FRT12, and P. rhizosphaerae FST5 showed moderate or vigorous inhibition against three tested plant pathogenic fungi, F. culmorum, F. solani and R. solani. They also demonstrated the capability to produce hydrolytic enzymes and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA). Five out of 16 isolates significantly stimulated shoot and root growth of marigold in a pot experiment. The present study reveals that more than half of the bacterial isolates associated with marigold (C. officinalis L.) provided antifungal activity against one or more plant pathogenic fungi. Our findings suggest that medicinal plants with antimicrobial activity could be a source for selecting microbes with antagonistic activity against fungal plant pathogens or with plant growth stimulating potential. These isolates might be considered as promising candidates for the improvement of plant health.



    Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) belongs to the Asteraceae family, a native of Mediterranean countries, and is broadly distributed in Europe and also Asia [1]. The plant is traditionally widely used for the treatment of inflammatory swellings, wounds, skin diseases, oral disease, or urinary disorders [2],[3]. Various biological activities of plant extracts from C. officinalis L. were reported, including antimicrobial [4][6], antidiabetic and antihyperlipidemic activity [3]. Marigold is cultivated not only for the pharmaceutical industry but also for the food and cosmetics industries in several countries of the world, including Europe and India [3],[7]. However, several pathogenic fungi and bacteria have detrimental impacts on the commercial production of this plant, e.g., flower blight (Alternaria zinniae), Botrytis blight (Botrytis cinerea), damping-off (Pythium sp., Rhizoctonia solani), root rot and wilt disease caused by Fusarium solani, Rhizoctonia solani, Fusarium oxysporium and wilt and stem rot caused by Phytophthora cryptogea [8][10]. For example, the leaf spot disease caused by Cercospora calendulae may harm and destroy about 50% of marigold plants [11].

    Several fungicides are in use to control marigold pathogens [12],[13]. Moreover, chemical fertilisers are also widely used for marigold production, e.g., magnesium [14], nitrogen and phosphorus fertilisers [15],[16]. Basically, it is essential to reduce the use of agrochemicals for the cultivation of medicinal plants since they are typically consumed after harvest without being further processed and moreover, used for pharmaceutical purposes [17]. One of the possible eco-friendly technologies to stimulate plant growth and control their disease is to use plant growth-promoting bacterial inoculants [18][20]. Especially endophytes, which are located in internal tissues, leaves, fruits, ovules, nodules, stem or seeds of plants, produce secondary metabolites which hold the potential to support plants to survive and flourish in hostile environments [21][24]. Endophytes use several mechanisms to support plant health, including the production of phytohormones [25][27], 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase [28], hydrogen cyanide [29],[30] and induced systemic resistance [31][33]. The diversity of endophytic microbes associated with medicinal plant species such as Aloe vera, Mentha arvensis, Dracaena cochinchinensis, Hedycium acuminatum, Armoracia rusticana, and others, were reported [34][36]. Although several studies reported on the phytochemical constituents and biological activity of marigold (C. officinalis L.), to date, there have been no reports of endophytes associated with marigold and their biological properties. The report of Kaki et al. [37] characterizes Bacillus species from the rhizosphere of marigold, which showed plant beneficial traits, growth stimulation of chickpea, and biological control of Sclerotonia sclerotiorum. Mohammadi et al. [38] isolated endophytes from Calendula officinalis L. with antimicrobial activity against some human bacterial pathogens. Here, we report endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (C. officinalis L.) from the Chatkal Biosphere Reserve of Uzbekistan. The knowledge of the medicinal plant-associated endophytic bacteria and their physiological activities within plant tissue are essential to improve our understanding of the role of endophytes in plant growth and development. In the current study, we aim: (1) to isolate and identify culturable endophytic bacteria associated with Calendula officinalis L. from the Chatkal Biosphere Reserve, Uzbekistan by using 16S rRNA gene analysis, and (2) to evaluate the plant beneficial properties of endophytic bacteria.

    Marigold (C. officinalis L.) was collected from Chatkal Biosphere Reserve of Uzbekistan in June 2018. The region is considered unique, with many endemic species. The climate is dry, with annual temperatures ranging from 20–25 °C. Six individual plants at a distance of 20–30 m and more were collected as a whole and stored in zip-lock plastic bags using sterile gloves and transported to the laboratory of the National University of Uzbekistan. The root system of plants was carefully separated from shoots, and soil attached to the roots was washed with sterile water.

    The root and shoot (10 g fresh weight) were separated and sterilized with 99.9% ethanol for 2 minutes and 10% NaClO for 1 min and rinsed with sterile distilled water two times for 5 min [39]. The sterile leaves and roots were ground with a mortar and pestle, and 1 g of each sample was transferred into plastic tubes with 9 mL sterile phosphate-buffered saline (PBS) and then serially diluted (101–105). 100 µl aliquots from the appropriate dilutions were spread on 30% Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA) (BD, Difco Laboratories, Detroit, USA) supplemented with nystatin 50 µg/mL and plates were incubated at 28 °C for four days. After four days, single colonies with different shape, colour and density were picked and transferred by streaking on nutrient agar plates and incubated for the next 96 h to check the purity of the isolates. Visually homological colonies in sizes, shapes and colours were checked under a microscope for purity and used for DNA isolation. In order to test the sterility of the outer surfaces of the plant parts after sterilization with ethanol, we put two uncut pieces of roots and shoots onto TSA media, and the absence of any colonies after 96 h confirmed that sterilization was successful.

    The individual isolates were cultivated in slopes with TSA at 28 °C for 72 h. Subsequently, the colonies were transferred into tubes with Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB Sigma-Aldrich) using a microbiological loop. The isolates were cultivated in TSB at 28 °C for 72 h. The isolation of DNA from bacteria was performed following the method of Dashti et al. [40]. The tubes with bacterial suspension were incubated at 90 °C for 20 min in a Dry Block Heater (IKA Works, Inc., Wilmington, USA) and centrifuged at 12.000 rpm for 5 min. The presence of DNA in the samples was checked using gel electrophoresis and quantified with NanoDrop™ One (Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Waltham, USA).

    The DNA extracted from endophytes was used for 16S rRNA gene analysis. The amplification of 16S rRNA genes was conducted by means of PCR using the primers: 27F 5′-GAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′ (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) and 1492R 5′-GAAAGGAGGTGATCCAGCC-3′ (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, Missouri, USA) [41]. The reaction mixture (25 µL) contained: 1µL of DNA (15–40 ng), 5 µL of 5x One Taq standard reaction buffer (BioLabs, New England); 0.5 µL of 10 mM dNTP mix (Thermo Scientific), 0.5 µL of 10 mM primer 16SF (Merck), 0.5 µL of 10 mM primer 16SR (25 pmol/mL) (Merck), 1 µL of 0.1% bovine serum albumin (TaKaRa Bio Inc., USA), 0.125 µL of One Taq polymerase (BioLabs, New England), 16.375 µL of MQ water. The PCR was conducted using a PTC-200 thermocycler (Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA). The PCR program was as follows: a primary heating step for 30 s at 94 °C, followed by 30 cycles of denaturation for 15 s at 94 °C, annealing for 30 s at 55 °C, and extension for 1.5 min at 68 °C, then followed by the final step for 20 min at 68 °C. The PCR amplified products were checked by electrophoresis using 0.8% agarose gel containing GelRed.

    To distinguish similar isolates, we performed a RFLP analysis of 16S rRNA genes according to Jinneman et al. [42]. The digested DNA fragments were examined using gel electrophoresis (1% agarose gel). The gel was visualised using a Digital gel imaging system (Gel-Doc XR TM+, Bio-Rad Laboratories, USA). Identical isolates were eliminated, and the rest was sequenced.

    Before sequencing, the PCR products were cleaned using USB® ExoSAP-IT® PCR Product Cleanup Kit (Affymetrix, USB® Products, USA). Sequencing was conducted using ABI PRISM BigDye 3.1 Terminator Cycle Sequencing Ready Reaction Kit (Applied Biosystems, USA) according to the protocol of a manufacturer. Chromas (v. 2.6.5) software was used for the analysis of the received data. Corrected sequences were merged manually using EMBOSS Explorer (http://emboss.bioinformatics.nl/). The identification of sequences was performed using BLAST (Basic Local Alignment Search Tool) and by comparisons with the GenBank nucleotide data bank from the National Centre for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/). The ClustalX 2.1 software was used for multiple alignments of all sequences. The received FASTA format file was used to construct the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary history was concluded using the Neighbor-Joining method [43]. The sum of a tree branch length is 1.03011234. The percentage of replicate trees in which the associated taxa clustered together in the bootstrap test (500 replicates) are shown next to the branches [44]. The tree is drawn to scale, with branch lengths in the same units as those of the evolutionary distances used to infer the phylogenetic tree. The evolutionary distances were computed using the Maximum Composite Likelihood method [45] and are in the units of the number of base substitutions per site. The analysis involved 33 nucleotide sequences (see supplementary material). All positions containing gaps and missing data were deleted. The final dataset contained in total of 1342 positions. Evolutionary analyses were conducted in MEGA6 [46].

    The bacterial isolates were cultivated in tubes with Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB Sigma-Aldrich) for 72 h at 28 °C. A solvent extraction procedure described in Elissawy et al. [47] was used to extract cell-free supernatant. Plant extraction was performed using the Soxhlet apparatus described in Rojsanga et al. [48] with some modification. The marigold plants were dried at room temperature, and 10 g plant powder were extracted two times with 200 mL of 80% aqueous ethanol solution at 80 °C, 2 h for each time. The extract was filtered, evaporated to dryness, and the residue was cooled in a desiccator for 30 min and then accurately weighed for analysis.

    For the measurement of antifungal activity of plant extracts and cell-free suspensions of endophytic bacterial isolates, the plant pathogenic fungi Fusarium oxysporum, F. solani, and Rhizoctonia solani were used. The fungal pathogens were obtained from the Culture Collection of the National University of Uzbekistan. The fungi were cultivated on peptone dextrose agar (PDA) medium at 27 °C within 5–7 days. Agar disks with fungal growth were cut on small squares (with the side size 7 mm) and placed in the center of plates with fresh PDA medium. The plant extracts and cell-free suspensions were transferred into agar wells. The plates were incubated at 27 °C until the fungi entirely covered the control plates without bacteria. The zone of inhibitions was estimated by measuring the diameter of the zone between wells and fungal growth.

    The production of IAA (indole 3-acetic acid) by endophytic isolates was studied using the method described by Bano and Musarrat [49]. The bacteria were grown in TSB medium for 72 h at 28 °C, then transferred to tubes and centrifuged at 13000 x g for 10 min. One milliliter of supernatant was transferred to a fresh tube to which 100 µl of 10 mM orthophosphoric acid and 2 mL of reagent (1 mL of 0.5 M FeCl3 in 50 mL of 35% HClO4) were added. The IAA production was evaluated following pink colour developed after 30 min in the dark and calculated by using a calibration curve of pure IAA as a standard. The production of HCN by bacterial isolates was measured using the protocol described by Castric [50], and ACC-deaminase activity as described by Lugtenberg et al. [51]. The production of β-1,3-glucanase was determined following the method of Walsh et al. [52] using the substrate lichenan (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) in top agar plates, and a clear zone indicated degradation of the substrate. Protease secretion was revealed by growing strains on TSA/20 amended with skimmed milk to a final concentration 5%. The halo appearing on the first–second day of cultivation around colonies indicated the presence of extracellular protease [53]. The chitinase activity of bacterial isolates was studied as described by Malleswari and Bagyanarayana [54], and lipase activity using the tween lipase indicator assay [55].

    Bacteria were grown in Tryptic Soy Broth (TSB Sigma-Aldrich) for 72 h, and bacterial suspensions were adjusted to an optical density at 620 nm of 0.1 (OD620 = 0.1) corresponding to a cell density of about 108 cells/mL. Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) seeds were coated with bacteria by dipping the seeds in bacterial suspensions. Inoculated seedlings were sown in plastic pots (9 cm diameter; 12 cm deep) containing 350 g of soil. The inoculation treatments were set up in a randomized design with ten replications. The pot experiment had two treatments: seeds non-inoculated with bacteria and seeds inoculated with bacteria. Plants were grown at 19–21 °C during the day and 15–17 °C at night, and after 8 weeks, the leaves with stem and root length and dry weight were measured [56].

    Data were tested for statistical significance by the analysis of variance included in Microsoft Excel 2010 package. Mean comparisons were conducted using the least significant difference (LSD) test (P = 0.05). The mean values of IAA production, antimicrobial activity, and the standard deviation were extracted for each observation.

    The 16S rRNA gene sequences of the endophytic bacteria of C. officinalis L. were deposited into GenBank under the accession numbers: MH165349–MH165364.

    A total of 42 bacterial isolates were isolated from plant tissues of marigold. The RFLP analysis was conducted to eliminate similar isolates, and as a result, only 18 isolates were obtained: 7 from roots and 11 from shoots (Table 1). The isolates were identified using the BLAST basic local alignment search tool and compared with similar strains from the NCBI GenBank. The 16S rRNA sequences similarities of endophytic bacteria isolated from plant tissue of marigold with sequences from GenBank are shown in Table 1.

    All isolates were similar by 98.55–99.86% to those registered in GenBank. The isolated endophytes represent four classes of bacteria: Alphaproteobacteria, Betaproteobacteria, Gammaproteobacteria and Actinobacteria. The most numerous were representatives of the class Gammaproteobacteria (11): FRT2, FRT6, FRT12, FRT26, FSN1, FSN4, FSN5, FST1, FST4, FST5 and FST13. Only three isolates belonged to alphaproteobacteria: FRN6, FRT3 and FRT9. Betaproteobacteria were represented by isolate FST8 and Actinobacteria by isolate FST16.

    A phylogenetic tree using the Neighbor-Joining method was constructed, showing the closest relatives of the isolates (Figure 1).

    Table 1.  Sequence similarities of endophytic bacteria isolated from the roots and shoots of marigold (C. officinalis L.) with sequences registered in GenBank.
    Isolated strains deposited to GenBank
    Closest match
    (16S rRNA genes) (GenBank)
    Source of isolation Strain Length (bp) Accession number Reference strains Accession number Per cent identity
    Roots FRN6 1387 MH165349 Agrobacterium fabrum NR_074266.1 99.06
    FRT2 1430 MH165350 Pseudoxanthomonas japonensis NR_113972.1 98.56
    FRT3 1381 MH165351 Beijerinckia fluminensis NR_116306.1 98.92
    FRT6 1440 MH165352 Pseudomonas lini NR_029042.2 98.89
    FRT9 1392 MH165353 Agrobacterium tumefaciens NR_041396.1 99.28
    FRT12 1442 MH165354 Pseudomonas kilonensis NR_028929.1 99.38
    FRT26 1450 MH165355 Pantoea agglomerans NR_041978.1 99.04

    Shoots FSN1 1455 MH165356 Pantoea dispersa NR_116797.1 98.90
    FSN4 1444 MH165357 Enterobacter ludwigii NR_042349.1 99.52
    FSN5 1448 MH165358 Pseudomonas oryzihabitans NR_115005.1 99.24
    FST1 1437 MH165359 Pseudomonas plecoglossicida NR_024662.1 99.86
    FST4 1445 MH165360 Pantoea ananatis NR_026045.1 98.55
    FST5 1441 MH165361 Pseudomonas rhizosphaerae NR_029063.1 98.96
    FST8 1436 MH165362 Achromobacter kerstersii NR_152015.1 99.24
    FST13 1443 MH165363 Xanthomonas campestris NR_074936.1 99.38
    FST16 1433 MH165364 Rathayibacter caricis NR_028756.1 98.89
    FRT9 1392 MH165353 Agrobacterium tumefaciens NR_041396.1 99.28
    FRT26 1450 MH165355 Pantoea agglomerans NR_041978.1 99.04

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV
    Figure 1.  Phylogenetic tree of bacterial endophytes isolated from Calendula officinalis L. and their closest relatives from GenBank. I–VI–clusters (orders): I–Pseudomonadales, II–Enterobacteriales, III–Burkholderiales, IV–Xanthomonadales, V–Rhizobiales, VI–Actinomycetales.

    There were six main clusters in the tree. As it is clearly seen by the tree, the most diverse genus (cluster I) from the isolated endophytes is Pseudomonas represented by five Gram-negative strains: Pseudomonas lini FRT6, Pseudomonas kilonensis FRT12, Pseudomonas oryzihabitans FSN5, Pseudomonas plecoglossicida FST1, Pseudomonas rhizosphaerae FST5. Cluster II represented the order of Gram-negative bacteria Enterobacteriales and included the strains Pantoea agglomerans FRT26, Pantoea dispersa FSN1, Pantoea ananatis FST4, and Enterobacter ludwigii FSN4. Cluster III presented only one Gram-negative strain, i.e., Achromobacter kerstersii FST8. Cluster IV presented two Gram-negative strains of family Xanthomonadaceae, i.e., Pseudoxanthomonas japonensis FRT2 and Xanthomonas campestris FST13. Cluster V presented three Gram-negative strains of the order Rhizobiales, i.e., Agrobacterium fabrum FRN6, Beijerinckia fluminensis FRT3 and Agrobacterium tumefaciens FRT9. Cluster VI presented only the Gram-positive strain Rathayibacter caricis FST16 from the order Actinobacteria.

    Among the bacterial strains, P. kilonensis FRT12, and P. rhizosphaerae FST5 showed moderate or strong inhibition against three tested plant pathogenic fungi F. culmorum, F. solani and R. solani (Table 2). Other strains exhibited antifungal activity against two tested fungal pathogens. Plant extract showed antifungal activity against F. solani and R. solani.

    Table 2.  Antifungal activity of bacterial endophytes from marigold (C. officinalis L.) against plant pathogenic fungi.
    Treatments with bacterial strains Growth inhibition zone in diameter (mm)
    Fusarium oxysporum Fusarium solani Rhizoctonia solani
    Achromobacter kerstersii FST8 - 3 ± 1 7 ± 1
    Agrobacterium fabrum FRN6 - - -
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens FRT9 - - -
    Beijerinckia fluminensis FRT3 9 ± 1 8 ± 1 -
    Enterobacter ludwigii FSN4 - - -
    Pantoea agglomerans FRT26 8 ± 1 - 7 ± 1
    Pantoea ananatis FST4 - - -
    Pantoea dispersa FSN1 12 ± 1 - 10 ± 1
    Pseudomonas kilonensis FRT12 11 ± 1 12 ± 1 11 ± 1
    Pseudomonas lini FRT6 - 8 ± 1 -
    Pseudomonas oryzihabitans FSN5 10 ± 1 - 12 ± 1
    Pseudomonas plecoglossicida FST1 - - -
    Pseudomonas rhizosphaerae FST5 9 ± 1 10 ± 1 8 ± 1
    Pseudoxanthomonas japonensis FRT2 - 11 ± 1 -
    Rathayibacter caricis FST16 - - -
    Xanthomonas campestris FST13 - - -
    Plant extract - 3 ± 1 5 ± 1

    “-” no formation of inhibition zone

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    We characterized several plant growth-promoting traits of endophytes isolated from C. officinalis L. The results showed that ten out of sixteen root-associated bacteria produced IAA (Table 3). The highest IAA synthesis was observed in the root-associated bacteria P. oryzihabitans FSN5 (8.4 µg/mL) and P. rhizosphaerae FST5 (9.2 µg/mL). ACC deaminase production was observed in seven out of sixteen bacterial strains, whereas hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production in five strains only (Table 3). The strains were also checked for fungal cell wall degrading enzymes: chitinase, protease, ß-1,3-glucanase and lipase. The majority of strains produced one or more enzymes. Only two isolates P. kilonensis FRT12 and P. rhizosphaerae FST5 produced all tested enzymes.

    Table 3.  Plant beneficial traits of endophytic bacteria isolated from marigold (C. officinalis L.).
    Bacterial strains Fungal cell wall degrading enzymes
    HCN IAA (µg/mL) ACC deaminase
    Chitinase Protease Glucanase Lipase
    Achromobacter kerstersii FST8 + + - - - - +
    Agrobacterium fabrum FRN6 - - - - - 4.2 ± 0.3 -
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens FRT9 - - - - - 1.2 ± 0.2 +
    Beijerinckia fluminensis FRT3 + + - + + 3.9 ± 0.2 -
    Enterobacter ludwigii FSN4 - - - - - - +
    Pantoea agglomerans FRT26 - + + + + - -
    Pantoea ananatis FST4 - - - - - 3.4 ± 0.2 -
    Pantoea dispersa FSN1 - - + + + - -
    Pseudomonas kilonensis FRT12 + + + + - 4.5 ± 0.3 -
    Pseudomonas lini FRT6 + + - - - 7.8 ± 0.3 +
    Pseudomonas oryzihabitans FSN5 + + - + + 8.4 ± 0.3 -
    Pseudomonas plecoglossicida FST1 - + - - - 7.1 ± 0.3 +
    Pseudomonas rhizosphaerae FST5 + + + + + 9.2 ± 0.3 +
    Pseudoxanthomonas japonensis FRT2 + - - + - 7.5 ± 0.3 +
    Rathayibacter caricis FST16 - - - - - - -
    Xanthomonas campestris FST13 - - - - - - -

    “+” positive. “-” negative

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The endophytes were tested for their plant growth promotion abilities (Table 4). The inoculation of marigold seeds with endophytic bacteria increased plant shoot and root dry weight. The strongest growth promotion was observed in the case of B. fluminensis FRT3 when the shoot dry weight increased by 28%, and root dry weight by 17% as compared to control plants without inoculation. The shoot and root dry weight were also stimulated by A. tumefaciens FRT9, P. lini FRT6, P. oryzihabitans FSN5, and P. plecoglossicida FST1 inoculation up to 25 and 29% compared to control plants, respectively.

    Table 4.  The shoot and root dry weight of marigold (C. officinalis L.) when seedlings were inoculated with endophytic bacteria. Plants were grown in pots for 8 weeks.
    Treatment Shoot dry weight (g) Root dry weight (g)
    Control (un-inoculated plants) 1.735 ± 0.11 0.457 ± 0.025
    Achromobacter kerstersii FST8 1.872 ± 0.11 0.491 ± 0.026
    Agrobacterium fabrum FRN6 2.015 ± 0.21 0.521 ± 0.059*
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens FRT9 2.184 ± 0.14* 0.546 ± 0.036*
    Beijerinckia fluminensis FRT3 2.229 ± 0.18* 0.539 ± 0.054*
    Enterobacter ludwigii FSN4 1.804 ± 0.11 0.505 ± 0.031
    Pantoea agglomerans FRT26 1.731 ± 0.12 0.462 ± 0.026
    Pantoea ananatis FST4 2.043 ± 0.16 0.563 ± 0.045*
    Pantoea dispersa FSN1 1.657 ± 0.08 0,431 ± 0.021
    Pseudomonas kilonensis FRT12 2.012 ± 0.26 0.507 ± 0.063
    Pseudomonas lini FRT6 2.148 ± 0.36* 0.592 ± 0.099*
    Pseudomonas oryzihabitans FSN5 2.123 ± 0.41* 0.532 ± 0.112*
    Pseudomonas plecoglossicida FST1 2.108 ± 0.29* 0.553 ± 0.079*
    Pseudomonas rhizosphaerae FST5 2.001 ± 0.48 0.412 ± 0.127
    Pseudoxanthomonas japonensis FRT2 1.936 ± 0.35 0.541 ± 0.082*

    * Significantly different from the un-inoculated plants at P < 0.05

     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Endophytic bacteria associated with plants play an essential role in plant health. They produce various beneficial metabolites and thus have been considered as a source of valuable biologically active compounds [23][26]. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first report where endophytic bacteria associated with marigold (C. officinalis L.) grown in the arid Chatkal Biosphere Reserve, Uzbekistan have been analysed. Profiling of endophytic bacteria isolated from the roots of marigold demonstrated that these included 18 isolates belonging to the genera Pantoea (4), Enterobacter, Pseudomonas (5), Achromobacter, Xanthomonas, Rathayibacter, Agrobacterium (3), Pseudoxanthomonas, and Beijerinckia. Similar bacterial species were isolated from tissues of other medicinal plants, e.g., P. kilonensis from Lotus corniculatus [23], B. frigoritolerans from Glycyrrhiza uralensis [57], B. fluminensis from rhizome of Curcuma longa, E. ludwigii from Aloe vera [58] and P. ananatis from Solanum mauritianum [59]. Notably, we have observed A. tumefaciens, and P. agglomerans both in the roots and the shoots of the marigold. However, it has been reported previously that bacteria in plant tissues can migrate from soil to aerial parts of the plant through chemotaxis [60],[61].

    Moreover, in our study of marigold, several bacterial endophytes demonstrated antagonistic activity against the plant pathogenic fungi F. oxysporum, F. solani, and R. solani. Higher proportions of endophytes with antifungal properties were previously reported among plant-associated bacteria with Hypericum perforatum [62],[63] and Chelidonium majus L. [64]. Evidence is available that biologically active compounds of medicinal plants may affect endophytic microbes living inside the plant tissue and their physiological functions [24],[65],[66]. According to Mehanni and Safwat [66], endophytic bacteria may demonstrate similar biological activity and produce metabolites as their hosts. This statement was confirmed by the work of Koberl et al. [24] for endophytic bacteria isolated from the medicinal plants Matricaria chamomilla, Calendula officinalis, Solanum distichum, and for endophytic bacteria isolated from Hypericum perforatum, which showed antifungal activities as their host. Moreover, findings showed that fungal pathogens could be successfully controlled by the use of antagonistic features of endophytic bacteria without causing substantive harm to the host [67][70]. For example, endophytes associated with Monarda citriodora, which showed antagonistic activity against Fusarium oxysporum, F. redolens proved biocontrol potential [38]. Several basic mechanisms underlying plant beneficial effects were reported in the literature, including the production of phytohormones, fungi cell wall degrading enzymes, hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production and ACC-deaminase [71][73]. Ten out of sixteen bacterial strains produced at least one of four checked fungal cell wall degrading enzymes, i.e., chitinase, protease, ß-1,3-glucanase, and lipase. It is known that bacterial production of fungal cell wall degrading enzymes such as chitinase, which can degrade the integral fungal cell wall component-chitin, protease, degrading fungal proteins, lipase, which can degrade some fungal cell wall-associated lipids, β-1,3-glucanase, which can degrade cell wall carbohydrates, is one of the main mechanisms of plant pathogens suppression [64]. Five out of sixteen bacterial strains demonstrated the production of HCN, a mechanism also involved in the suppression of soil-borne pathogens [74]. Michelsen and Stougaar [75] reported that Pseudomonas fluorescens strains which synthesized HCN inhibited the hyphal growth Rhizoctonia solani and Pythium aphanidermatum. In our study, ten out of sixteen bacterial strains were able to produce IAA and stimulated the growth of root or shoot of marigold seedlings. There are numerous reports on the IAA production by endophytic bacteria associated with other medicinal plants [76]. The endophytic bacteria isolated from Cassia occidentalis, stimulated the plant growth of mung bean in pot experiments through its ability to produce IAA [77]. Furthermore, bacterial endophytes synthesized ACC deaminase, which can lower the level of ethylene, a plant stress hormone, through which plant stress tolerance increased [28]. In our study, seven out of sixteen endophytic bacterial isolates were able to produce ACC deaminase. It was reported that bacterial strains P. putida TSAU1 and P. aureantiaca TSAU22 were capable to synthesize ACC deaminase, stimulated the wheat root system in saline soils [56].

    Beneficial effects of PGPR on plant growth of medicinal plants were recorded for Ocimum basilicum [78], Calendula officinalis [79], Catharanthus roseus [80] and Datura plants [81]. A significant increase in root and shoot growth of Galega orientalis was detected after co-inoculation of P. trivialis combined with R. galegae [82]. Rasool et al. [83] observed plant growth-promoting potential of root-associated bacteria B. frigoritolerans, and B. aryabhattai isolated from saffron (Crocus sativus L.) that could be a promising source of plant growth stimulants to increase cormlets growth and increase saffron production.

    The present study reveals for the first time the isolation, identification and characterisation of endophytic bacteria from marigold (C. officinalis L.) sampled from the Chatkal Biosphere reserve of Uzbekistan. Among the identified endophytic isolates, species belonging to Agrobacterium, Pseudomonas, and Pantoea were obtained. The bacterial strains associated with marigold possessed antifungal activity against plant pathogenic fungi and were able to synthesize chitinase, protease, ß-1,3-glucanase, lipase, HCN, IAA and ACC-deaminase. Twelve out of 16 isolates stimulated shoot and root growth of marigold. Our findings suggest that medicinal plants with antimicrobial activity could be a source for selecting microbes with antagonistic activity against plant fungal pathogens and plant growth stimulators and might thus be considered as promising candidates for the improvement of plant health. However, these findings also show that further research is necessary to resolve the impact of endophytic bacteria with selected PGPR traits on plant growth and controlling fungal diseases in field experiments.


    Acknowledgments



    This research was supported by the CPEA-LT-2016/10095 grant from the Eurasia program of the Norwegian Centre for Cooperation in Education and by the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD).

    Conflict of interest



    The authors declare no conflict of interest.

    Author contributions:



    DE designed the experiment. VS and BA conducted the experiment. SW and VS analysed the data. DE, VS and SDBK wrote the manuscript. KD and SW revised the manuscript and made critical comments. All authors read and approved the manuscript.

    [1] Danielski L, Campos LMAS, Bresciani LFV, et al. (2007) Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.) oleoresin: Solubility in SC-CO2 and composition profile. Chem Eng Prog 46: 99-106. doi: 10.1016/j.cep.2006.05.004
    [2] Jan N, Andrabi KI, John R (2017) Calendula officinalis-an important medicinal plant with potential biological properties. Proc Indian Natn Sci Acad 83: 769-787.
    [3] Verma PK, Raina R, Agarwal S, et al. (2018) Phytochemical ingredients and pharmacological potential of Calendula officinalis Linn. Pharm Biomed Res 4: 1-17.
    [4] Chakraborty GS (2010) Phytochemical screening of Calendula officinalis Linn leaf extract by TLC. Int J Res Ayurveda Pharm 1: 131-134.
    [5] Shapour HCh, Mehrdad AK, Abdollah GP (2016) Phytochemical analysis and antibacterial effects of Calendula officinalis essential oil. Biosci Biotech Res Comm 9: 517-522. doi: 10.21786/bbrc/9.3/26
    [6] Shankar ShM, Bardvalli SG, Jyotirmayee R, et al. (2017) Efficacy of Calendula officinalis extract (marigold flower) as an antimicrobial agent against oral microbes: an in vitro study in comparison with chlorhexidine digluconate. J Clin Diagn Res 11: ZC05-ZC10.
    [7] Cromack HTH, Smith JM (1998) Calendula officinalis-production potential and crop agronomy in southern England. Ind Crop Prod 7: 223-229. doi: 10.1016/S0926-6690(97)00052-6
    [8] Abdel-Wahed GA (2020) Application of some fungicides alternatives for management root rot and wilt fungal diseases of marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Sci J Agric Sci 2: 31-41.
    [9] Sohi HS (1983)  Personal communication on disease of marigold Banglore: IIHR.
    [10] Singh VK, Singh Y, Kumar P (2012) Diseases of ornamental plants and their management. Eco-friendly innovative approaches in plant disease management New Delhi: International Book Distributors and Publisher, 543-572.
    [11] Pirone PP (1978)  Diseases and pests of ornamental plants Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.
    [12] Bharnwal MK, Jha DK, Dubey SC (2002) Evaluation of fungicides against Alternaria blight of marigold (Tagetes sp.). J Res BAU 14: 99-100.
    [13] Kumar V (2012) Marigold diseases and its control. Agropedia Available from: http://agropedia.iitk.ac.in/content/marigold-diseases-its-control.
    [14] Szwejkowska B, Bielski S (2012) Effect of nitrogen and magnesium fertilization on the development and yields of pot marigold (Calendula officinalis L.). Acta Sci Pol Hortorum Cultus 11: 141-148.
    [15] Hussein MM, Sakr RA, Badr LA, et al. (2011) Effect of some fertilizers on botanical and chemical characteristics of pot marigold plant (Calendula officinalis L.). J Hortic Sci Ornament Plants 3: 220-231.
    [16] Krol B (2011) The effect of different nitrogen fertilization rates on yield and quality of marigold (Calendula officinalis L. ‘Tokaj’) raw material. Acta Agrobot 64: 29-34. doi: 10.5586/aa.2011.027
    [17] Banchio E, Bogino P, Zygadlo J, et al. (2008) Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria improve growth and essential oil yield in Origanum majorana L. Biochem Syst Ecol 36: 766-771. doi: 10.1016/j.bse.2008.08.006
    [18] Egamberdieva D, Li L, Lindström K, et al. (2015a) A synergistic interaction between salt tolerant Pseudomonas and Mezorhizobium strains improves growth and symbiotic performance of liquorice (Glycyrrhiza uralensis Fish.) under salt stress. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100: 2829-2841. doi: 10.1007/s00253-015-7147-3
    [19] Egamberdieva D, Shurigin V, Gopalakrishnan S, et al. (2015b) Microbial strategies for the improvement of legume production in hostile environments. Legumes under environmental stress: yield, improvement and adaptations UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 133-144. doi: 10.1002/9781118917091.ch9
    [20] White JF, Kingsley KL, Zhang Q, et al. (2019) Review: Endophytic microbes and their potential applications in crop management. Pest Manag Sci 75: 2558-2565. doi: 10.1002/ps.5527
    [21] Egamberdieva D, Kamilova F, Validov S, et al. (2008) High incidence of plant growth-stimulating bacteria associated with the rhizosphere of wheat grown in salinated soil in Uzbekistan. Environ Microbiol 19: 1-9.
    [22] Egamberdieva D, Kucharova Z, Davranov K, et al. (2011) Bacteria able to control foot and root rot and to promote growth of cucumber in salinated soils. Biol Fertil Soils 47: 197-205. doi: 10.1007/s00374-010-0523-3
    [23] Pawlik M, Cania B, Thijs S, et al. (2017) Hydrocarbon degradation potential and plant growth-promoting activity of culturable endophytic bacteria of Lotus corniculatus and Oenothera biennis from a long-term polluted site. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24: 19640-19652. doi: 10.1007/s11356-017-9496-1
    [24] Koberl M, Ramadan EM, Adam M, et al. (2013) Bacillus and Streptomyces were selected as broad-spectrum antagonists against soilborne pathogens from arid areas in Egypt. FEMS Microbiol Lett 342: 168-178. doi: 10.1111/1574-6968.12089
    [25] Dodd IC, Zinovkina NY, Safronova VI, et al. (2010) Rhizobacterial mediation of plant hormone status. Ann Appl Biol 157: 361-379. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2010.00439.x
    [26] Egamberdieva D, Wirth S, Alqarawi AA, et al. (2017a) Phytohormones and beneficial microbes: Essential components for plants to balance stress and fitness. Front Microbiol 8: 2104. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.02104
    [27] Shurigin V, Egamberdieva D, Li L, et al. (2020a) Endophytic bacteria associated with halophyte Seidlitzia rosmarinus Ehrenb. ex Boiss. from arid land of Uzbekistan and their plant beneficial traits. J Arid Land 12: 730-740. doi: 10.1007/s40333-020-0019-4
    [28] Glick BR (2014) Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol Res 169: 30-39. doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.009
    [29] Shurigin V, Egamberdieva D, Samadiy S, et al. (2020b) Endophytes from medicinal plants as biocontrol agents against fusarium caused diseases. Mikrobiol Z 82: 41-52. doi: 10.15407/microbiolj82.04.041
    [30] Alemu F (2016) Isolation of Pseudomonas flurescens from rhizosphere of faba bean and screen their hydrogen cyanide production under in vitro study, Ethiopia. Am J Life Sci 4: 13-19. doi: 10.11648/j.ajls.20160402.11
    [31] Hashem A, Abd_Allah EF, Alqarawi A, et al. (2016) The interaction between arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and endophytic bacteria enhances plant growth of Acacia gerrardii under salt stress. Front Plant Sci 7: 1089.
    [32] Chung EJ, Hossain MT, Khan A, et al. (2015) Bacillus oryzicola sp. Nov., an endophytic bacterium isolated from the roots of rice with antimicrobial, plant growth promoting, and systemic resistance inducing activities in rice. Plant Pathol J 31: 152-164. doi: 10.5423/PPJ.OA.12.2014.0136
    [33] Mao JN, Zhang XY, Gong MF (2016) Disease resistance induction in rice by inoculation with endophytic bacteria strain REB01. ICESSD 2015 459-464.
    [34] Hastuti US, Al-Asna PM, Rahmawati D (2018) Histologic observation, identification, and secondary metabolites analysis of endophytic fungi isolated from a medicinal plant, Hedichium acuminatum Roscoe. AIP Conf Proc 2002: 020070Available from: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5050166. doi: 10.1063/1.5050166
    [35] Salam N, Khieu TN, Liu MJ, et al. (2017) Endophytic actinobacteria associated with Dracaena cochinchinensis Lour.: isolation, diversity, and their cytotoxic activities. Biomed Res Int 2017: 1308563. doi: 10.1155/2017/1308563
    [36] Egamberdieva D, Shurigin V, Alaylar B, et al. (2020b) Bacterial endophytes from horseradish (Armoracia rusticana G. Gaertn., B. Mey. & Scherb.) with antimicrobial efficacy against pathogens. Plant Soil Environ 66: 309-316. doi: 10.17221/137/2020-PSE
    [37] Ait Kaki A, Kacem Chaouche N, Dehimat L, et al. (2013) Biocontrol and plant growth promotion characterization of Bacillus species isolated from Calendula officinalis rhizosphere. Indian J Microbiol 53: 447-452. doi: 10.1007/s12088-013-0395-y
    [38] Katoch M, Pull S (2017) Endophytic fungi associated with Monarda citriodora, an aromatic and medicinal plant and their biocontrol potential. Pharm Biol 55: 1528-1535. doi: 10.1080/13880209.2017.1309054
    [39] Mohammadi AM, Ebrahimi A, Mahzonieh MR, et al. (2021) Antibacterial activities of bacterial endophytes isolated from Zataria multiflora, Achillea willhelmsii and Calendula officinalis L against some human nosocomial pathogens. Zahedan J Res Med Sci 18: e2482.
    [40] Dashti AA, Jadaon MM, Abdulsamad AM, et al. (2009) Heat treatment of bacteria: a simple method of DNA extraction for molecular techniques. Kuwait Med J 41: 117-122.
    [41] Lane DJ (1991) 16S/23S rRNA Sequencing. Nucleic Acid Techniques in Bacterial Systematic New York: John Wiley and Sons, 115-175.
    [42] Jinneman KC, Wetherington JH, Adams AM, et al. (1996) Differentiation of Cyclospora sp. and Eimeria spp. by using the polymerase chain reaction amplification products and restriction fragment length polymorphisms. FDA Lab Information Bulletin LIB 4044: Available from: http://vm.cfsan.fda.gov/~mow/kjcsl9c.html.
    [43] Saitou N, Nei M (1987) The neighbor-joining method: a new method for reconstructing phylogenetic trees. Mol Biol Evol 4: 406-425.
    [44] Felsenstein J (1985) Confidence limits on phylogenies: An approach using the bootstrap. Evolution 39: 783-791. doi: 10.1111/j.1558-5646.1985.tb00420.x
    [45] Tamura K, Nei M, Kumar S (2004) Prospects for inferring very large phylogenies by using the neighbor-joining method. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101: 11030-11035. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0404206101
    [46] Tamura K, Stecher G, Peterson D (2013) MEGA6: molecular evolutionary genetics analysis version 6.0. Mol Biol Evol 30: 2725-2729. doi: 10.1093/molbev/mst197
    [47] Elissawy AM, Ebada SS, Ashour ML, et al. (2019) New secondary metabolites from the mangrove-derived fungus Aspergillus sp. AV-2. Phytochem Lett 29: 1-5. doi: 10.1016/j.phytol.2018.10.014
    [48] Rojsanga P, Gritsanapan W, Suntornsuk L (2006) Determination of berberine content in the stem extracts of Coscinium fenestratum by TLC densitometry. Med Princ Pract 15: 373-378. doi: 10.1159/000094272
    [49] Bano N, Musarrat J (2003) Characterization of a new Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain NJ-15 as a potential biocontrol agent. Curr Microb 46: 324-328. doi: 10.1007/s00284-002-3857-8
    [50] Castric PA (1975) Hydrogen cyanide, a secondary metabolite of Pseudomonas aeruginosaCan J Microbiol 21: 613-618. doi: 10.1139/m75-088
    [51] Lugtenberg BJJ, Kravchenko LV, Simons M (1999) Tomato seed and root exudate sugars: composition, utilization by Pseudomonas biocontrol strains and role in rhizosphere colonization. Environ Microbiol 1: 439-446. doi: 10.1046/j.1462-2920.1999.00054.x
    [52] Walsh GA, Murphy RA, Killeen GF, et al. (1995) Technical note: detection and quantification of supplemental fungal beta-glucanase activity in animal feed. J Anim Sci 73: 1074-1076. doi: 10.2527/1995.7341074x
    [53] Brown MRW, Foster JHS (1970) A simple diagnostic milk medium for Pseudomonas aeruginosaJ Clin Pathol 23: 172-177. doi: 10.1136/jcp.23.2.172
    [54] Malleswari D, Bagyanarayan G (2013) In vitro screening of rhizobacteria isolated from the rhizosphere of medicinal and aromatic plants for multiple plant growth promoting activities. J Microbiol Biotechnol Res 3: 84-91.
    [55] Howe TG, Ward JM (1976) The utilization of tween 80 as carbon source by PseudomonasJ Gen Microbiol 92: 234-235. doi: 10.1099/00221287-92-1-234
    [56] Egamberdieva D, Kucharova Z (2009) Selection for root colonising bacteria stimulating wheat growth in saline soils. Biol Fertil Soils 45: 561-573. doi: 10.1007/s00374-009-0366-y
    [57] Mohamad OA, Li L, Ma JB, et al. (2018) Evaluation of the antimicrobial activity of endophytic bacterial populations from Chinese traditional medicinal plant licorice and characterization of the bioactive secondary metabolites produced by Bacillus atrophaeus against Verticillium dahliaeFront Microbiol 9: 924. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2018.00924
    [58] Akinsanya MA, Goh JKh, Lim SP, et al. (2015) Diversity, antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of culturable bacterial endophyte communities in Aloe veraFEMS Microbiol Lett 362: fnv184. doi: 10.1093/femsle/fnv184
    [59] Uche-Okereafor N, Sebola T, Tapfuma K, et al. (2019) Antibacterial activities of crude secondary metabolite extracts from Pantoea species obtained from the stem of Solanum mauritianum and their effects on two cancer cell lines. Int J Environ Res Public Health 16: 602. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16040602
    [60] Bulgarelli D, Schlaeppi K, Spaepen S, et al. (2013) Structure and functions of the bacterial microbiota of plants. Annu Rev Plant Biol 64: 807-838. doi: 10.1146/annurev-arplant-050312-120106
    [61] Chi F, Shen S, Cheng H, et al. (2005) Ascending migration of endophytic rhizobia, from roots to leaves, inside rice plants and assessment of benefits to rice growth physiology. Appl Environ Microbiol 71: 7271-7278. doi: 10.1128/AEM.71.11.7271-7278.2005
    [62] Egamberdieva D, Wirth S, Behrendt U, et al. (2017c) Antimicrobial activity of medicinal plants correlates with the proportion of antagonistic endophytes. Front Microbiol 8: 199.
    [63] Shurigin V, Davranov K, Wirth S, et al. (2018) Medicinal plants with phytotoxic activity harbour endophytic bacteria with plant growth inhibitory properties. Environ Sustainability 1: 209-215. doi: 10.1007/s42398-018-0020-4
    [64] Goryluk A, Rekosz-Burlaga H, Blaszczyk M (2009) Isolation and characterization of bacterial endophytes of Chelidonium majus L. Pol J Microbiol 58: 355-361.
    [65] Egamberdieva D, Wirth S, Li L (2017b) Microbial cooperation in the rhizosphere improves liquorice growth under salt stress. Bioengineered 8: 433-438. doi: 10.1080/21655979.2016.1250983
    [66] Mehanni MM, Safwat MS (2010) Endophytes of medicinal plants. Acta Hortic 854: 31-40. doi: 10.17660/ActaHortic.2010.854.3
    [67] Nongkhlaw FMW, Joshi SR (2014) Epiphytic and endophytic bacteria that promote growth of ethnomedicinal plants in the subtropical forests of Meghalaya, India. Rev Biol Trop 62: 1295-1308. doi: 10.15517/rbt.v62i4.12138
    [68] Egamberdieva D, Wirth SJ, Shurigin VV, et al. (2017d) Endophytic bacteria improve plant growth, symbiotic performance of chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and induce suppression of root rot caused by Fusarium solani under salt stress. Front Microbiol 8: 1887. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2017.01887
    [69] Liu Y, Mohamad OAA, Salam N, et al. (2019) Diversity, community distribution and growth promotion activities of endophytes associated with halophyte Lycium ruthenicum Murr. 3 Biotech 9: 144. doi: 10.1007/s13205-019-1678-8
    [70] Egamberdieva D, Shurigin V, Alaylar B, et al. (2020a) The effect of biochars and endophytic bacteria on growth and root rot disease incidence of Fusarium infested narrow-leafed lupin (Lupinus angustifolius L.). Microorganisms 8: 496. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms8040496
    [71] Ferchichi N, Toukabri W, Boularess M, et al. (2019) Isolation, identification and plant growth promotion ability of endophytic bacteria associated with lupine root nodule grown in Tunisian soil. Arch Microbiol 201: 1333-1349. doi: 10.1007/s00203-019-01702-3
    [72] Fernando TC, Cruz JA (2019) Profiling and biochemical ıdentification of potential plant growth-promoting endophytic bacteria from Nypa fruticansPhilipp J Crop Sci 44: 77-85.
    [73] Rana KL, Kour D, Yadav AH (2019) Endophytic microbiomes: Biodiversity, ecological significance and biotechnological applications. Res J Biotechnol 14: 142-162.
    [74] Siddiqui ZA (2005) PGPR: prospective biocontrol agents of plant pathogens. PGPR: biocontrol and biofertilization Dordrecht: Springer, 111-142.
    [75] Michelsen CF, Stougaard P (2012) Hydrogen cyanide synthesis and antifungal activity of the biocontrol strain Pseudomonas fluorescens In5 from Greenland is highly dependent on growth medium. Can J Microbiol 58: 381-390. doi: 10.1139/w2012-004
    [76] Ahmed EA, Hassan EA, El Tobgy KMK, et al. (2014) Evaluation of rhizobacteria of some medicinal plants for plant growth promotion and biological control. Ann Agric Sci 59: 273-280. doi: 10.1016/j.aoas.2014.11.016
    [77] Musa Z, Ma J, Egamberdieva D, et al. (2020) Diversity and antimicrobial potential of cultivable endophytic actinobacteria associated with medicinal plant Thymus roseusFront Microbiol 11: 191. doi: 10.3389/fmicb.2020.00191
    [78] Hemavathi VN, Sivakumr BS, Suresh CK, et al. (2006) Effect of Glomus fasciculatum and Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria on growth and yield of Ocimum basilicumKarnataka J Agric Sci 19: 17-20.
    [79] Hosseinzadah F, Satei A, Ramezanpour MR (2011) Effects of mycorrhiza and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria on growth, nutrient uptake and physiological characteristics in Calendula officinalis L. Middle East J Sci Res 8: 947-953.
    [80] Karthikeyan B, Joe MM, Jaleel CA, et al. (2010) Effect of root inoculation with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on plant growth, alkaloid content and nutrient control of Catharanthus roseus (L.) G. Don. Nat Croat 19: 205-212.
    [81] Rahmoune B, Morsli A, Khelifi-Slaoui M, et al. (2017) Isolation and characterization of three new PGPR and their effects on the growth of Arabidopsis and Datura plants. J Plant Interact 12: 1-6. doi: 10.1080/17429145.2016.1269215
    [82] Egamberdieva D, Berg G, Lindstrom K, et al. (2010) Co-inoculation of Pseudomonas spp. with Rhizobium improves growth and symbiotic performance of fodder galega (Galega orientalis Lam.). Eur J Soil Biol 46: 269-272. doi: 10.1016/j.ejsobi.2010.01.005
    [83] Rasool A, Mir MI, Zulfajri M, et al. (2021) Plant growth promoting and antifungal asset of indigenous rhizobacteria secluded from saffron (Crocus sativus L.) rhizosphere. Microb Pathog 150: 104734. doi: 10.1016/j.micpath.2021.104734
  • microbiol-07-03-021-s001.pdf
  • This article has been cited by:

    1. Johan Sukweenadhi, Kevin Sutanto, Ida Bagus Made Artadana, Wina Dian Savitri, Se Chan Khang, The Effect of Beijerinckia fluminensis G3 and Rhizobium pusense G4c on Germination of rice Var. Ciherang and red rice Var. Barak Cenana, 2022, 1083, 1755-1307, 012025, 10.1088/1755-1315/1083/1/012025
    2. B.S. Alikulov, V.V. Shuryhin, K.D. Davranov, Z.F. Ismailov, Halophytic Plant Halostachys belangeriana (Moq.) Botsch as a Source of Plant Growth-Promoting Endophytic Bacteria, 2023, 84, 10280987, 30, 10.15407/microbiolj84.04.030
    3. Hamada F. A. Ahmed, Mahmoud F. Seleiman, Ibrahim A. A. Mohamed, Ragab S. Taha, Daniel O. Wasonga, Martin L. Battaglia, Activity of Essential Oils and Plant Extracts as Biofungicides for Suppression of Soil-Borne Fungi Associated with Root Rot and Wilt of Marigold (Calendula officinalis L.), 2023, 9, 2311-7524, 222, 10.3390/horticulturae9020222
    4. Zhaogao Li, Weie Wen, Ming Qin, Yuqi He, Delin Xu, Lin Li, Biosynthetic Mechanisms of Secondary Metabolites Promoted by the Interaction Between Endophytes and Plant Hosts, 2022, 13, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2022.928967
    5. Vyacheslav Shurigin, Jakhongir Alimov, Kakhramon Davranov, Tashkhan Gulyamova, Dilfuza Egamberdieva, The diversity of bacterial endophytes from Iris pseudacorus L. and their plant beneficial traits, 2022, 3, 26665174, 100133, 10.1016/j.crmicr.2022.100133
    6. Hau-Hsuan Hwang, Pei-Ru Chien, Fan-Chen Huang, Pin-Hsien Yeh, Shih-Hsun Walter Hung, Wen-Ling Deng, Chieh-Chen Huang, A Plant Endophytic Bacterium Priestia megaterium StrainBP-R2 Isolated from the Halophyte Bolboschoenus planiculmis Enhances Plant Growth under Salt and Drought Stresses, 2022, 10, 2076-2607, 2047, 10.3390/microorganisms10102047
    7. Polina C. Tsalgatidou, Eirini-Evangelia Thomloudi, Kallimachos Nifakos, Costas Delis, Anastasia Venieraki, Panagiotis Katinakis, Calendula officinalis—A Great Source of Plant Growth Promoting Endophytic Bacteria (PGPEB) and Biological Control Agents (BCA), 2023, 11, 2076-2607, 206, 10.3390/microorganisms11010206
    8. Sudesh Kumari, Prity Gulia, Pooja Choudhary, Namita Sharma, Sweety Dahiya, Aruna Punia, Anil Kumar Chhillar, Endophytes: Untapped Source of Antifungal Agents, 2024, 20, 15734072, 10.2174/0115734072276049231207110314
    9. Yiming Wang, Yongjing Zhang, Hao Cong, Changgen Li, Jiaying Wu, Ludan Li, Jihong Jiang, Xiaoying Cao, Cultivable Endophyte Resources in Medicinal Plants and Effects on Hosts, 2023, 13, 2075-1729, 1695, 10.3390/life13081695
    10. Ovinuchi Ejiohuo, Samson Folami, Abdulkadir Yusif Maigoro, Calendula in modern medicine: Advancements in wound healing and drug delivery applications, 2024, 12, 27724174, 100199, 10.1016/j.ejmcr.2024.100199
    11. Xiaolin Chen, Miaomiao Zhang, Lihua Tang, Suiping Huang, Tangxun Guo, Qili Li, Screening and characterization of biocontrol bacteria isolated from Ageratum conyzoides against Collectotrichum fructicola causing Chinese plum (Prunus salicina Lindl.) anthracnose, 2023, 14, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2023.1296755
    12. David Touchette, Catherine Maggiori, Ianina Altshuler, Alex Tettenborn, Louis-Jacques Bourdages, Elisse Magnuson, Olivia Blenner-Hassett, Isabelle Raymond-Bouchard, Alex Ellery, Lyle G. Whyte, Microbial Characterization of Arctic Glacial Ice Cores with a Semiautomated Life Detection System, 2023, 23, 1531-1074, 756, 10.1089/ast.2022.0130
    13. Vivek Kumar, Chandra S. Nautiyal, Endophytes Modulate Plant Genes: Present Status and Future Perspectives, 2023, 80, 0343-8651, 10.1007/s00284-023-03466-y
    14. Asiya Nazir, Abdul R. Puthuveettil, Fathima Hasnain Nadeem Hussain, Khalid E. Hamed, Nayla Munawar, Endophytic fungi: nature’s solution for antimicrobial resistance and sustainable agriculture, 2024, 15, 1664-302X, 10.3389/fmicb.2024.1461504
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2021 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(4597) PDF downloads(226) Cited by(14)

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(4)

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog