Endophytism: A Multidimensional Approach to Plant–Prokaryotic Microbe Interaction

Abstract

Plant growth and development are positively regulated by the endophytic microbiome via both direct and indirect perspectives. Endophytes use phytohormone production to promote plant health along with other added benefits such as nutrient acquisition, nitrogen fixation, and survival under abiotic and biotic stress conditions. The ability of endophytes to penetrate the plant tissues, reside and interact with the host in multiple ways makes them unique. The common assumption that these endophytes interact with plants in a similar manner as the rhizospheric bacteria is a deterring factor to go deeper into their study, and more focus was on symbiotic associations and plant–pathogen reactions. The current focus has shifted on the complexity of relationships between host plants and their endophytic counterparts. It would be gripping to inspect how endophytes influence host gene expression and can be utilized to climb the ladder of “Sustainable agriculture.” Advancements in various molecular techniques have provided an impetus to elucidate the complexity of endophytic microbiome. The present review is focused on canvassing different aspects concerned with the multidimensional interaction of endophytes with plants along with their application.

Introduction

Earth has been kneeling under the pressure of a rapidly increasing population which has exerted a lot of stress on the stakeholders, namely, farmers, scientists, and other intermediaries alike. What the world needs right now is extensive, yet a nature-friendly system of agriculture using modern tools along with systems sans application of chemical fertilizers (Lareen et al., 2016). The current system of agriculture is based on the application of chemical fertilizers and other inputs to enhance productivity, thereby leading to destruction of soil nutrients, groundwater contamination, eutrophication, and production of greenhouse gasses, thereby, impacting the overall environment and playing havoc to the health of consumers both humans and animals alike. To overcome this, microbes with plant growth promoting (PGP) traits are being explored to develop potential bioinoculants for sustainable and eco-friendly agriculture.

The plants and microorganisms are well known to interact by various natural amalgams that serve as signaling and nutritive substances for microbes to act upon and influence the nature of the plant microbiome. Plants are naturally associated with microorganisms in rhizosphere, phyllosphere, and endosphere (Dong et al., 2019). The rhizosphere is the tapered region of soil regulated by plant root secretions and associated microbial community termed as root microbiome (Turner et al., 2013; Suneja et al., 2016). Phyllosphere is the microbial habitat on the exterior of above-ground plant organs and the most abundant microbial ecosystem on earth (Vorholt, 2012). Microorganisms living and growing within their host plants are termed endophytes, constituting the plant endosphere. Endophytic bacteria usually complete their life cycle inside host plants without causing any harm to them (Dudeja et al., 2012). However, these bacteria flourish copiously in the rhizosphere due to sufficient nutrition supply by plant root exudates (Canarini et al., 2019).

The abundance of microorganisms in the rhizosphere is known since the beginning of the 20th Century but the endosphere region has not been explored much (Sessitsch et al., 2011). Earlier, the endosphere was known mainly for the fungal group and as a result, our preliminary information about bacterial endophytes remained circumscribed. Various other factors restricted our understanding regarding the action of bacterial endophytes, which includes culturing hitches and lack of pioneering identification techniques. However, endophytic bacteria have attracted a lot of attention since the last two decades owing to recognition of their ability to promote plant growth and their biocontrol potential (Vasileva et al., 2019). This review discusses the PGP endophytic bacteria, their interaction with host plants leading to variations in colonization patterns and diversity, mechanisms of plant growth promotion under normal as well as stress conditions along with omics-led revolution in the field of exploring their bioactive metabolites.

Plant Growth-Promoting Endophytic Bacteria–Host Plant: Interaction and Colonization

Endophytes (either bacteria or fungi) are defined as colonizers of the internal plant tissues without causing any disease or hostile symptoms and obtained from surface-sterilized tissue of plant (Santoyo et al., 2016; Afzal et al., 2019). Bacterial endophytes are known to be present in every plant part, namely, seeds, rhizomes, roots, nodules, stems, and leaves (Alibrandi et al., 2018). It has been anticipated that endophytic bacteria referred to as the subclass of rhizospheric bacteria or seed-borne bacterial communities, commonly termed as PGP rhizobacteria, established the ability to enter into the host plant (Khare et al., 2018). They possess all vital PGP traits as present in rhizobacteria, but their effect on host plants is typically more significant than rhizobacteria owing to the better adaptation during stress conditions resulting in augmentation of plant growth (Hardoim et al., 2008; Afzal et al., 2019).

The rhizosphere is the interaction point between roots and soil microorganisms (Bulgarelli et al., 2012). Plants release exudates such as organic acids, amino acids, and proteins from their roots, which serve as pre-communication signals between bacterial endophytes and host plants (Kawasaki et al., 2016). Colonization of bacteria into roots occurs through root hairs and, to some extent, through the stem and leaves (Maela, 2019). Some studies have reported that endophytes also colonize through flowers and fruits of the anthosphere and carposphere (Frank et al., 2017). A few regular hotspots have been observed for bacterial colonization such as emergence sites of lateral roots, outer layers of cells, and root cortex (dos Santos et al., 2018). Endophytic bacterial colonization is a multi-stage process that involves (a) chemotactic movement toward roots, (b) root surface attachment, (c) entry inside the root, and (d) movement and localization (Gupta et al., 2012; Kandel et al., 2017a). Table 1 cites various genes involved in the colonization of endophytes.

Bacteria, in the vicinity of the roots, receive chemical signals from root exudates and move toward them. Saleh et al. (2020) reported that citric acid, a root exudate of Brachypodium distachyon, acting as a strong chemoattractant for PGP bacterial strains. The hypothesis of Streptomyces species being attracted by the root exudates was tested and confirmed by Worsley et al. (2021) on the root exudates of Arabidopsis thaliana. The study demonstrated that phytohormone, salicylate, plays a specific role in this process. The genes for proteins encoding motility, chemotaxis, and adhesion are upregulated in response to root exudates, indicating a two-way interaction between the endophyte and its host plant (Jha et al., 2018). Chemotaxis is a significant event in the rhizosphere and the interior parts of roots, for both movement and colonization (Kawasaki et al., 2016). Mutant strains of Azorhizobium caulinodans lacking chemotaxis gene cluster (che) were reported to undergo defective colonization owing to its significant role in biofilm formation and exopolysaccharides (EPSs) production (Liu X. et al., 2018; Liu W. et al., 2018, Table 1). Bacterial endophytes primarily bind to the root surface (rhizoplane) and detect the possible entry sites for accessing internal plant tissues (Kandel et al., 2017a). The entry points used by endophytes to reach the host plant are the gaps present in the roots where root hairs or lateral roots arise, as well as the holes in the shoots, wounds, stomata, and hydathodes (Hardoim et al., 2015). Figure 1 illustrates distinct steps of colonization.

FIGURE 1

Many researchers have stated that extensive bacterial endophyte colonization occurs at the secondary root emergence site. It is because of rapid endophytic penetration at epidermal breakage-point, colonizing at the cortex and subsequent spreading through the endodermis to the vascular tissue (Mahaffee, 1994; Lodewyckx et al., 2002). Endophytes release the cell wall–degrading enzymes such as pectinases, xylanases, cellulases, and endoglucanases before colonizing the roots (Naveed et al., 2013; Maela, 2019). This phenomenon facilitates the entry of bacteria within plant tissues (Kandel et al., 2017a). Various gene sequences have been deduced by comparative genomics, engaged in biofilm formation, adhesion, and motility, leading to plant colonization and maintaining healthy plant–microbe interaction. Bacterial cells synthesize EPSs during the early colonization phase which help the cells to adhere to the root surface. The endophytic strain Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus produces EPS that serves as a critical factor for adhesion and colonization in rice roots (Meneses et al., 2011). The study showed that EPS production by G. diazotrophicus shielded the bacterial cells from oxidative damage, and also decreased the concentrations of free radicals. Colonization was found to be reduced in the case of EPS knockout strain of G. diazotrophicus, further rescued by the application of wild-type strain (Meneses et al., 2017). Fernández-Llamosas et al. (2021) used homologous recombination for insertional disruption of epsF genes in the genome of Azoarcus sp. CIB depicting their role in the efficient colonization of rice roots. Xu et al. (2021) identified EPS biosynthesis gene, blr2358, in Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens USDA110, the mutant of which resulted in a reduced capacity to induce nodules. Other than playing a significant role in plant–endophyte interactions, they exhibit antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, anti-tumor, and prebiotic activities (Liu W. et al., 2018). Lipopolysaccharide machinery is involved in the attachment and proliferation of endophyte colonization that includes the development of flagella and pili, quorum sensing, and movement of bacteria within the host plants (Rocío Suaìrez-Moreno et al., 2010; Scharf et al., 2016). The role of cell wall degrading enzymes in entering and spreading within the host tissue is also very well established. Fan et al. (2016) highlighted the importance of endo-β-1, 4-glucanase in penetration of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens into the host tissue. The disruption mutant of eglS gene encoding this enzyme halted colonization; however, overexpression of the same resulted in a substantial increase in the endophyte population. Mechanism of bacterial endophyte attachment with plant surface, entry, survival, is mediated by the cross-talk between host and microorganism, and a lot is to be studied in this regard.

Endophytism vs. Pathogenicity: Thin Line Between Two Lifestyles

The prevalence of endophytes is decided by chance and genetic indicators of bacteria that promote intermodulation between bacteria and plants, contributing to an active colonization (Dong et al., 2019). Endophytes maintain a smaller cell density to prevent a systemic reaction in comparison to pathogens (Zinniel et al., 2002). They also produce lesser quantities of cell wall degrading enzymes as compared to the phytopathogens that secrete deleteriously large amounts of these enzymes, thereby, preventing the trigger of plant defense systems (Elbeltagy et al., 2000; Afzal et al., 2019). Anabolism-related genes are found to be more diverse and in abundance among the endophytes unlike the phytopathogens having catabolism genes prominently (Hardoim et al., 2015). Endophytes undergo several mechanisms to protect themselves from the plant defense system. Microbe-/pathogen-associated molecular patterns (MAMPs/PAMPs) are the characteristics of microbes recognized by pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) present on the surface of plant cells (Newman et al., 2013). Endophytic bacteria produce MAMPs which either remain unrecognized by plant’s PRRs or induce only a weak reaction as a response in comparison to the pathogenic interactions (Vandenkoornhuyse et al., 2015). They produce enzymes of antioxidant machinery such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD), glutathione S-transferases (GSTs), and alkyl-hydroperoxide reductase C (AhpC), to mitigate the oxidative burst (Zeidler et al., 2004). Bacterial virulence factors are delivered in the extracellular environment or directly into the host by the secretion system (Depluverez et al., 2016). Type-III and Type-VI protein secretion systems, necessary to deliver effector proteins into the plant by pathogens, are altogether absent or present scarcely in endophytic bacteria (Liu W. et al., 2018). Endophytes have been found to undergo a reduction in genome size, which is associated with differences in niche specialization (Lòpez-Fernàndez et al., 2015; Zin et al., 2021). Some bacterial endophytes also downregulate flagella biosynthesis and upregulate functions related to flagellar motor rotation to mask up their flagellin PAMPs and move fast within plants during colonization.

Endophytes have been reported to undergo a change in their lifestyles from endophytes to pathogenic as a result of any imbalance in the host–microbe interaction (Mengistu, 2020). Strategies employed by the plants to distinguish endophytes from pathogens are still a matter of active research. Plett and Martin (2018) have indicated that LysM receptor-like kinases (LysM-RLKs) can differentiate pathogenic signals from those secreted by the mutualistic microbes. It has been suggested that different groups of genes are regulated during colonization in the plants to facilitate the same. The majority of pathways targeted by miRNAs of plant defense system are turned off. These microRNAs otherwise remain stable and can be used as a pathogenicity signal by the plants (Wang et al., 2017). Plants undergo nutrient monitoring to identify parasites and manipulate the ratio of MAMP/DAMP signals to identify the mutualistic signals. However, there are many such receptor/perceptor systems present throughout the plant kingdom that are yet to be studied (Plett and Martin, 2018). Many studies have pointed toward downregulation of plant defense during colonization by mutualistic partners (Khare et al., 2018). In the recruitment of an endophytic companion, the plant host often plays a pivotal role, where the release of specific root exudates and a selective host plant defense response are considered as crucial factors in choosing individual endophytes (Kumar A. et al., 2020).

Apprehending the Endophytes

Enormous benefits provided by endophytes have led to robust research in this field world over. Harnessing their potential to the fullest and large scale application requires a more clear and better understanding of endophytes. It is no less than a challenge as the methods available for detection, isolation, and identification are not sufficient to provide the entire picture of the host–parasite interaction. Cultivation-based studies omit several microbes because it is not possible to reproduce and maintain the optimal conditions required for the growth of most of the microbes (Santoyo et al., 2016). However, the study of endophytes has come a long way from the typical isolation and cultivation methods to more sophisticated ones such as advanced microscopic techniques and “omics”-based studies (Table 2). The amalgamation of two or more techniques helps to significantly increase the discriminatory power of the analysis and a better overview of diversity. Therefore, a combination of techniques is employed to complement each other and to enrich our understanding of the detection and patterns of colonization as shown in Figure 2.

FIGURE 2

Microscopy is the sole direct method to observe the endophytes, which helps in understanding the mode of infection, tissue-specific concentration, and the extent of colonization along with the plant response (Johnston et al., 2006). Both light and electron microscopy can reveal the exact location of endophytes within the plant tissue (Kuldau and Yates, 2000). Electron microscopy provides us with the ultrastructural analysis of the endophytes (Pimentel Esposito-Polesi et al., 2017). Transmission electron microscopy (TEM) and scanning electron microscopy (SEM) yield valuable information about the inner structure and surface of the sample, respectively (Ramanujam et al., 2016). Electron microscopy has provided a lot of assistance in the detection of endophytes, the extent of colonization, interaction with the host, and establishment within the plant environment (War Nongkhlaw and Joshi, 2017). Fluorescence in situ hybridization is a powerful technique to analyze the microorganisms and screen various microbial communities employing group-specific probes. It involves targeting 16S rRNA gene’s conserved region or species-specific probe to observe the individual cells of endophytic bacteria (Castanheira et al., 2017). Green fluorescent protein (GFP) tagging and β-glucuronidase (GUS) staining rely on the broad host plasmids containing constitutively expressed GUS or GFP genes for tracking bacteria within the endosphere (Robertson-Albertyn et al., 2017). GFP-tagged endophytes fluoresce in the presence of UV or blue light and oxygen thus unfolding the information concerned with the success of colonization as well as the sites of entry (Reinhold-Hurek and Hurek, 2011).

Reactive oxygen species (ROS) staining is a more convenient and cost-effective method than the visualization techniques, for instance, TEM and Fluorescent microscopy. Similar to ROS, hydrogen peroxide (H₂O₂) and superoxide (O₂^–) radicals associated with the microbial invasion of eukaryotic cells are stained by 3,3′-diaminobenzidine tetrachloride (DAB) and nitroblue tetrazolium (NBT), respectively. DAB results in brown coloration, indicating the presence of endophytes in tissues (White et al., 2014). NBT stains superoxide radicals, which reduce NBT and it results in dark blue and water-insoluble formazan (Shinogi et al., 2003). It is used to detect endophytes in different plant tissues unlike DAB, which is not able to detect endophytes in shoot tissues because of the inability of DAB to penetrate the same.

Genomics-based studies such as next-generation sequencing and continued development in bioinformatics have allowed a significant improvement in our understanding of plant–endophyte interactions. Metagenomics and transcriptomics in particular are proving to be extremely useful for analyzing the functional characteristics of endophyte species (Kaul et al., 2016). Molecular methods are being readily employed to cultivate bacteria for their identification and enable to distinguish the bacterial populations in plant tissues (Afzal et al., 2019). These have allowed a more rigorous analysis of endophytic bacteria’s abundance and community composition (Santoyo et al., 2016). Different molecular methods used to characterize the endophytic bacteria include 16S rDNA sequencing, randomly amplified polymorphic DNA (RAPD), BOX-A₁R-based repetitive extragenic palindromic PCR, amplified ribosomal DNA restriction analysis, enterobacterial repetitive intergeneric consensus, denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) and repetitive extra-genic palindromic sequence.

Ten bacterial endophytes were isolated and identified from three different cereals, Triticum aestivum, Oryza sativa, and Zea mays (Liu et al., 2017a). These isolates were classified by 879F-RAPD and 16S rDNA sequencing followed by clustering into seven groups signifying a clonal origin and assigned into four genera, Paenibacillus, Enterobacter, Pantoea, and Klebsiella. Recently, Zheng et al. (2020) identified root nodule endophytes from Sesbania cannabina and Glycine soja using PacBio’s circular consensus sequencing of full-length 16S rDNA gene for more accurate taxonomic information. These nodule isolates were assigned to 18 genera and 55 species, Ensifer being the predominant genera. PacBio technology helps in less ambiguous classification and provides finer taxonomic details. This technique has also recently been used to explore microbial communities in different samples (Singer et al., 2016; Motooka et al., 2017; Pootakham et al., 2017). Lastochkina et al. (2020) performed RAPD-PCR analysis to confirm the identity of Bacillus subtilis within the internal tissues of T. aestivum L. The endophytic diversity and detailed analysis of endophytic bacterial composition from the commercial crop (Paullinia cupana) of Brazil using PCR-DGGE were studied. The study disclosed the presence of phyla Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Bacteroidetes, and Acidobacteria, Firmicutes being the predominant phylum (Bogas et al., 2015). The endophytic community of Distichlis spicata, Plucheaab sinthiodes, Gaultheria mucronate, and Hieracium pilosella growing in extreme environments of Chile (Atacama desert and Patagonia) was studied. The composition and diversity were analyzed using quantitative PCR and high-throughput gene sequencing of 16S rDNA. The endophytes from both the regions were categorized into phylum Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria, and Bacteroidetes (Zhang et al., 2019). Upon extensive data mining of endophytic diversity from various plants, it has been observed that the members of phylum Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Firmicutes were the most dominant (Rana et al., 2020; Bhutani et al., 2021).

Plant Growth Promoting Endophytic Bacteria: The Base of “Sustainable Agroecosystem”

Plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria (PGPEB) are well known to enhance the growth of plants directly and indirectly. They benefit directly to host by the concerted activity of biological nitrogen fixation, phytohormones production, phosphate solubilization, and modulation of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) deaminase expression for better growth under normal and stress conditions. Endophytes being in direct association with plants provide nitrogen in the functional form to their host either by fixing atmospheric nitrogen or by producing ammonia (Marques et al., 2010; Brígido et al., 2019). The frequent usage of nitrogen in the form of chemical fertilizers predominantly increases the cost of crop production. Hence, ammonia production by bacterial endophytes is an essential attribute for the selection of desirable bioinoculants (Li et al., 2017).

Solubilization and mineralization of phosphate are accomplished by bacterial endophytes, which assist in lowering the pH by releasing various organic acids that break Ca-bonded phosphorus in the bound form of soil (Sharma et al., 2013). Members of several genera have been reported as efficient phosphate solubilizers, such as Rhizobium, Bacillus, Serratia, Arthrobacter, Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Erwinia, and Microbacterium (Oteino et al., 2015; Li et al., 2017; Srinivasan et al., 2018). The production of phytohormones by PGPEB is another mechanism that significantly boosts the growth of plants and alters the plant morphology (de Souza et al., 2015). IAA is a commonly produced auxin by endophytic bacteria that controls various growth processes in plants, including cell division, elongation, differentiation, gravity, and light responses (Bhutani et al., 2018a). Thus, it aids the host plant in nutrient absorption (Dhungana and Itoh, 2019). There have been numerous studies documenting IAA-producing endophytic bacteria in addition to endogenous IAA in plants (Khan and Doty, 2009; Mohite, 2013; Etesami et al., 2015; Bhutani et al., 2018b; Maheshwari et al., 2021). The application of IAA-producing bacteria to plants has demonstrated substantial upsurge in growth and yield. In addition to this, microbial IAA has been reported as a signaling molecule in several interactions between plants and microbes (Duca et al., 2014).

Gaseous phytohormone, ethylene and its precursor 1-aminocyclopropane 1-carboxylic acid (ACC), play a significant role in response to a wide range of stresses (Glick, 2014). Symbiotic bacteria ease the negative impact of ethylene on plants by expressing the ACC deaminase (ACCD). A variety of endophytic bacteria such as Azospirillum, Ralstonia, Pseudomonas, Rhizobium, Agrobacterium, Enterobacter, Achromobacter, and Bacillus mojavensis possess ACC deaminase gene and are characterized for ACCD activity (Blaha et al., 2006; Glick et al., 2007; Maheshwari et al., 2020). Transgenic varieties of plants have been developed which, by expressing the bacterial ACCD gene, have improved stress tolerance mechanisms (Stearns and Glick, 2003; Singh et al., 2015). But the addition of ACCD-producing endophytic bacteria could be more cost-effective, readily available, and environmentally sustainable, with higher acceptability compared to transgenics (Glick, 2012; Barnawal et al., 2016).

Plant growth-promoting endophytic bacteria–based biofertilizers can be envisioned as the future nutrient delivery system for plants. This approach, if carried out effectively, can bring about “real” green revolution, which will be more sustainable and reliable (Lugtenberg and Kamilova, 2009; Liu et al., 2017b). To develop these endophytes as microbial inoculants in agriculture, their functional characterization based on PGP traits and in vivo evaluation to check their efficacy should be the first prerequisite (de Souza et al., 2015; Alori and Babalola, 2018). Ferchichi et al. (2019) evaluated in vitro and in vivo efficacy of bacterial endophytes from three species of Lupinus. Two endophytes Paenibacillus glycanilyticus and Pseudomonas brenneri possessed desired functional characters and promoted plant growth in vivo and in vitro that can be developed as eco-friendly biofertilizers to boost up Lupinus productivity. Recently, the multifunctional potential of Paenibacillus polymyxa isolated from bulbs of Lilium lancifolium was assessed (Khan M. S. et al., 2020). The bacterial isolate possessed various PGP traits, including the production of IAA, siderophores, ACCD, fixation of nitrogen, and solubilization of phosphate. It also promoted the plant growth of different Lilium varieties under greenhouse conditions. The study demonstrated that the potential of P. polymyxa can be evaluated as an effective bioinoculant. Before any ex-planta application for the agricultural crop, some pre-requisites need to be fulfilled for selection as an inoculant. These factors include colonization ability in plant roots, competition with other microflora and their survival in soil, upsurge exudate production which acts as a bridge between plant and bacteria, and improvement of soil health (Beauregard et al., 2013; Carvalhais et al., 2013; Ríos-Ruiz et al., 2019). Seven bacterial endophytes were isolated from different legume crops, namely, Glycine max, Vigna unguiculata, Vigna mungo, Vigna radiata, and Arachis hypogaea and categorized on the basis of PGP traits. These isolates were used to bacterize the seeds of A. hypogaea for plant growth stimulation experiments using gnotobiotic systems and in pots. The results depicted a positive influence on A. hypogaea growth. Additional treatment given along with chemical fertilizer at 50% recommended dose, positively affected A. hypogaea growth, but the negative effect was seen over the bacterial population when the dose of fertilizers exceeded more than 50%. Their results suggested that root nodules harbor the endophytic population, which augments the growth of a plant, and the addition of fertilizers adversely affects their population and activity (Dhole et al., 2016). The 28 bacterial endophytes were isolated from dry and germinating seeds of Cicer arietinum and characterized for PGP attributes. Molecular identification analysis showed that these endophytes belong to Pseudomonas sp., Enterobacter sp., Bacillus sp., Mixta sp., and Pantoea sp. These were applied to C. arietinum roots and led to an increase in plant length, biomass, and chlorophyll content along with biocontrol activity against Fusarium oxysporum (Mukherjee et al., 2020). Maheshwari et al. (2019a) isolated and investigated endophytic bacteria from C. arietinum and Pisum sativum for PGP attributes. Most efficient isolates were identified as Pantoea agglomerans, Bacillus cereus, Bacillus sonorensis, Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas chlororaphis, Ornithibacillus sp., and Ochrobactrum sp. These studies convey direct evidence for the occurrence of valuable endophytes, which can be further harnessed as bioinoculants for improving plant health.

Inducing Climate Change Resilience in Flora

Plant community throughout the world is suffering in terms of growth, development, and yield as a result of climate change–induced environmental stress manifested in the form of drought, flood, temperature extremes, salinity, heavy metal toxicity combined with biotic stresses caused due to herbivores, pathogens, and so on. Enough studies have reported the significant role played by endophytes in mitigating abiotic and biotic stress (Rani et al., 2021). Different mechanisms have been deciphered revealing the complex regulation involved in the stress tolerance conferred by the endophytes to the host plants. Drought, salinity, and temperature extremes have been reported as the most devastating abiotic stresses for crops as far as the yield is concerned. Plants respond to drought and salinity via stomatal closure, reduced turgidity, osmotic stress, ultimately reducing growth and yield (Van Zelm et al., 2020). Increased evaporation induced by high temperature leads to water loss resulting in the formation of protein aggregates as a result of protein folding inhibition, whereas low temperature leads to the formation of ice crystals causing permanent damage to cells (Lamers et al., 2020). Extreme temperature alters membrane fluidity (Nicolson, 2014).

Endophytes alleviate these stresses by upregulating aquaporins, improving the level of abscisic acid, ACCD activity, enhancing enzymatic and non-enzymatic ROS scavenging machinery and osmolytes, higher expression of ion channels KAT1 and KAT2 resulting in decreased Na⁺/K⁺, adjusting gene expression, and reducing malondialdehyde (MDA) content (Cohen et al., 2015; Gond et al., 2015; Barnawal et al., 2016; Abdelaziz et al., 2017; Xu et al., 2017; Zhang et al., 2017; Sapre et al., 2018; Wang et al., 2018). Likewise, toxic metal ions evoke oxidative stress by generating ROS which promote DNA damage/impairment of DNA repair mechanisms, membrane functional integrity, nutrient homeostasis, and perturb protein function and activity (Tamás et al., 2014). Endophytes induce heavy metal tolerance to their hosts by reducing the mobility of heavy metals by chelation or intracellular sequestration and limiting the translocation of heavy metal ions from roots to shoots (Leonhardt et al., 2014). Table 3 describes various endophytes conferring abiotic stress protection to their hosts by different mechanisms.

Plant Growth Promoting Endophytic Bacteria-Assisted Biocontrol of Phytopathogens

Several microbes (viruses, bacteria, and fungi), nematodes, and insects are responsible for infecting plants leading to biotic stress. Physical barriers such as cuticle, wax, trichomes, etc., form first line of defense for the plants (Iqbal et al., 2021). Promoting the availability and absorption of nutrients, augmentation of stress tolerance and disease resistance of disease are the key means of plant disease control by endophytic bacteria (Hamilton et al., 2012). The most commonly reported bacterial genera with biocontrol activity are Bacillus, Actinobacteria, Enterobacter, Pseudomonas, Paenibacillus, and Serratia (Ek-Ramos et al., 2019). These mechanisms can be broadly grouped into direct and indirect biocontrol activities (Figure 3).

FIGURE 3

Direct biocontrol involves the production of growth-inhibiting compounds such as siderophores, hydrogen cyanide, cell wall–degrading enzymes, and quorum-sensing inhibitors. Siderophore complex provides Fe to plants during the scarcity and assists them in iron acquisition (Dimkpa, 2016). A lot of work has been done to screen siderophore-producing endophytic bacteria–mediated improvement in plant growth along with biocontrol of phytopathogens (Lacava et al., 2008; Pandey et al., 2015; Passari et al., 2016; Walitang et al., 2017; Yan et al., 2018; Maheshwari et al., 2019b). A number of studies have demonstrated that siderophore-producing bacteria support the plants to endure both biotic and abiotic stresses. In a study by Ruiz et al. (2015), Pseudomonas protegens strain survived in the presence of Fusaric acid (mycotoxin)-producing Fusarium strains by producing metal scavenging siderophores (pyoverdine and pyochelin). Recently, Butaite et al. (2017) found that non- and low-pyoverdine siderophore producers coexist in various natural populations. The non-siderophore producers with suitable siderophore receptors can utilize external siderophores. The producers are different in the types of pyoverdine they secrete and offer protection against exploitation by non-producers and acquisition of iron unaccessible to opposing strains lacking the proper receptors.

Hydrogen cyanide (HCN) production leads to the growth inhibition of pathogens due to biogenic cyanogenesis. Cyanide, a metabolic inhibitor, inhibits the cytochrome C oxidase and the other metalloenzymes of the pathogen and thus helps the plant to combat against soil-borne diseases (Voisard et al., 1989; Blumer and Haas, 2000; Dheeman et al., 2019; Maheshwari et al., 2019a; Swarnalakshmi et al., 2019). Dubey et al. (2014) reported Bacillus subtilis strain producing HCN and other metabolites that inhibit the growth of phytopathogen Fusarium oxysporum. HCN-producing endophytes isolated from Glycine max exhibited in vitro antagonism against a wide range of phytopathogens, namely, Sclerotium rolfsii, Rhizoctonia solani, Alternaria alternata, F. oxysporum, Macrophomina phaseolina, and Colletotrichum truncatum (Dalal et al., 2015). The bacterial endophytes obtained from the medicinal plant Clerodendrum colebrookianum Walp possessed in vitro PGP activities including HCN production. These endophytes exhibited in vitro and in vivo biocontrol activity against various phytopathogenic fungi (Passari et al., 2016). Quorum sensing is mediated by small diffusible signaling molecules called autoinducers which mediate the regulation of diverse functions such as virulence and biofilm formation. Endophytic bacteria can interfere in quorum sensing using quorum sensing inhibitors and quorum quenching enzymes to control bacterial infections as a result of suppressing the formation of biofilm (Zhou et al., 2020). Many endophytic bacteria have been reported to produce lactonases and acylases which results in quorum quenching by the inactivation/degradation of major signaling molecules involved in quorum sensing, N-acyl homoserine lactones (Rashid et al., 2012).

Indirectly, endophytic bacteria are known to trigger jasmonic acid and ethylene-mediated induced systemic resistance which induces a defense mechanism and protects the plants from future attacks of plant pathogens (Miliute et al., 2015). It leads to the production of pathogenesis-related proteins, phytoalexins, defense-related enzymes such as polyphenol oxidase (PPO) and phenylalanine ammonia lyase, formation of physical barriers such as cuticles and modification of cell wall (Wiesel et al., 2014). Mao et al. (2019) demonstrated endophytic bacterial strain REB01 to induce disease resistance against rice sheath blight caused by R. solani via enhancing the activity of PPO, POD enzymes, and reducing the MDA content. Kim et al. (2019) isolated and selected pine endophytic bacteria on the basis of the relative expression of defense-related genes, Pseudomonas putida 16 YSM-E48, Curtobacterium pusillum 16YSM-P180, and Stenotrophomonas rhizophila 16YSM-P3G, effective against Bursaphelenchus xylophilus (pinewood nematode) causing pine wilt disease. Asghari et al. (2020) reported induction of systemic resistance in Vitis vinifera, by Pseudomonas sp. Sn48 and Pantoea sp. Sa14 against Agrobacterium tumefaciens through improvement in the levels of PR1, PR2, and PR4 gene expression levels of plantlets.

Some of the endophytic bacteria undergo rhizophagy, biphasic cycle of alternation between the root intracellular phase (nutrients extracted by plants) and a free-living soil phase (acquisition of nutrients by bacteria) (Dudeja et al., 2021). “Endobiome interference” is the term used to describe the phenomenon in which other endophytes interfere with rhizophagy and extract the nutrients from native microbes post-colonization. Although the mechanism behind this remains poorly understood, it has been hypothesized that the oxidative resistance of microbes reduces the capacity of host cells to control the intracellular microbes using ROS produced by NOX enzymes on the root cell plasma membranes. They can be explored to develop bioherbicides to target competitive weeds (White et al., 2019). This way they enhance stress in the host and inhibit their growth leading to an eco-friendly biocontrol option (Verma et al., 2021). Kowalski et al. (2018) explored endobiome interference by the application of a bacterial endophyte, Micrococcus luteus, isolated from the seedling root hairs of Lycopersicon esculentum, to arrest the growth of a weedy plant sp., Phragmites australis, by targeting its growth promotional native microbiome. It also illustrates a vital precaution to be taken before applying any exogenous endophytes, that is, to analyze the interactions between the endophytes being applied and the native microflora (Verma et al., 2021). Table 4 describes numerous studies depicting the biocontrol potential of the bacterial endophytes.

Harnessing “Omics” for Enhancing the Bioactive Metabolites

Bioactive compounds are mostly secondary metabolites produced by the microbes in an active culture cultivation process. Their unique properties have led to lots of research regarding their applications in healthcare as feed supplements, pharmaceuticals, and so on (Singh nee’ Nigam, 2009). Endophytes have been reported to produce many secondary metabolites similar to their host under in vitro systems. This ability can lessen our dependency on endangered plants for the extraction of metabolites (Sharma et al., 2021). Several approaches have been employed to harness novel metabolites or to enhance the production of already known ones to support and flourish their large scale application (Du and van Wezel, 2018). Co-culture engineering by culturing more than one type of endophyte together can make us exploit the intermicrobial communications for the enhanced production of bioactive metabolites. A number of studies have reported the production of new metabolites by this method (Stierle et al., 2017; Arora et al., 2018; Gautam et al., 2019). The associated disadvantages such as compatibility issues, competition for substrates, and data acquisition problems pose remarkable challenges (Padmaperuma et al., 2017; Jawed et al., 2019). A number of reports have demonstrated the precise effects of endophytes on the production of secondary metabolites of the host (Khare et al., 2018). Table 5 sums up recent studies dealing with the enhancement of bioactive compounds of the host owing to the endophytes. Other than enhancing the bioactive compounds of the host, endophytes serve as a great treasure of new metabolites which remains largely unexplored looking at the vast diversity of endophytic flora.

Some approaches have been developed in the recent past to trigger the expression of Biosynthetic gene clusters (BGCs) present in the genome of microbes (endophytes) that can yield some valuable secondary metabolites but remain either silent or poorly expressed. In most cases, BGCs remain silent under laboratory conditions due to complex regulation involved at transcriptional, translational, and post-translational levels. Therefore, the study of changes in gene expression at various levels needs to be done. Recent progress made in bioinformatics, especially genome mining tools have pushed the boundaries of “omics” technologies toward new horizons. It has revolutionized our understanding of the pathways controlling the expression of BGCs.

Genome mining is a powerful approach that can estimate the genetic potential of microbial strain by scanning genomes of interest and identifying the metabolites encoded by BGCs (Ziemert et al., 2016). Whole-genome sequencing and its comparative analysis yield the reconstruction of primary and secondary metabolic pathways that help in suggesting the key metabolic genes to be utilized for metabolic engineering (Palazzotto and Weber, 2018). Metabolic and genetic engineering involves the modulation of biosynthetic enzymes at cellular level/upregulation and downregulation of transcription and translation genes/knock-out and knock-in of desired genes and have been effective in enhancing the production of specific metabolites (Stephens et al., 2015). Mining tools such as antibodies and secondary metabolites analysis shell) (antiSMASH), generalized retro-biosynthetic assembly prediction engine (GRAPE), prediction informatics for secondary metabolomes (PRISM3) have been successful in overcoming the drawbacks associated with manual analyses to some extent. A number of natural products encoded by BGCs remain uncharacterized owing to the complicated regulations occurring at transcriptional, translational, and post-translational levels.

Transcriptome-based studies provide a comparative profile of gene expression and help to assess the key regulators which are in turn used for manifesting the designer strains having the ability to overproduce secondary metabolites (Chaudhary et al., 2013). Proteomics complements other two omics approaches, namely, transcriptomics and genomics, yielding information on differential pathways regulation highlighting key players in the biosynthesis of natural products, which can be used to target for rational engineering (Palazzotto and Weber, 2018). Comparative transcriptomics and proteomics are used to identify the alterations in gene expression associated with the overproduction which are subsequently re-engineered into the organism of interest by considering key genes involved in complex mechanisms. However, its success depends on the reproducibility of the overproducing mechanism in the new target strains (Chaudhary et al., 2013). One of the most important tools of system biology toolbox is metabolomics which catalogs all small metabolites in a biological sample. NMR- and MS-based metabolomic analysis facilitates measurement of low–molecular weight metabolites allowing the metabolic comparison of various biological samples leading to the identification of secondary metabolites from orphan BGCs. A comprehensive picture of metabolic networks helps to engineer the primary metabolism via cofactors and precursors for the biosynthesis of any secondary metabolite (Nguyen et al., 2012). Metagenomics is the most commonly used approach to study the chemistry of uncultivated bacteria. It provides a culture-independent approach to exploring the hidden potential of microorganisms.

Omics analysis in isolation is unable to completely unfurl the complexities involved in microbial metabolism associated with the production of secondary metabolites. Therefore, it is necessary to undertake their integration to get better insights into the same (Chaudhary et al., 2013). The combined use of multi-meta-omics approaches such as metabologenomics involves a combination of genome sequencing and automated gene clusters prediction with MS-based metabolomics. It provides us a complete picture of microbial metabolism shedding light on the silent BGCs and the role of natural products (Palazzotto and Weber, 2018). Precision engineering is another modern approach that integrates information from different sources, transcriptome profiling (DNA microarrays), proteome profiling (2D gel electrophoresis), and metabolic profiling (HPLC), thus enabling a more precise identification of key genetic targets and pathways engineered for strain improvement (Gao et al., 2010). Many microbes engineered by metabolic engineering are being used in industrial-scale processes; however, it is associated with challenges such as titers, yields, and productivities required for commercial viability. Different aspects of microbial physiology can also create obstacles for metabolic engineering (Montaño López et al., 2022).

Limitations and Challenges

Word “endophyte” searched on Google scholar (January 05, 2022) showed 80,100 results indicating extensive research happening in this arena. However, some lacunae need to be filled with regard to the research on endophytes. A sufficient number of studies have not been conducted to study the variations such as plant–microbe interactions on the field induced by a range of environmental and physiological conditions unlike in vitro. Information about the synergistic interaction between different microbial taxa such as bacteria, archaea, and fungi, is sparse with most of the studies focusing on each taxa separately.

Although the importance of biofertilizers and biocontrol potential of endophytes over conventional and environment degrading chemical pesticides are well known, some drawbacks of biopesticides are responsible for our slow speed on this eco-friendly path. High production cost and limited period of activity as compared to the chemical ones along with lower potency make it difficult for the farmers to opt for it. Owing to their target-specific nature, they control a specific portion of pests in the treated area and may leave the other damage-causing pests unaffected (Kawalekar, 2013). Lesser insights are available into the overlaps present in the metabolic pathways of endophytes and host plants, which leads to the production of a particular bioactive compound (Mishra et al., 2021). More research targeted at unfurling the genetic controls involved in stress tolerance conferring potential as well as bioactive compounds accumulation capability of the microbe is to be undertaken to unfold the molecular mechanisms behind the same.

Conclusion

Plant and endophytes exist in close interaction with each other and provide increased productivity as a bonus. The effects and functions of these associations have not been understood fully thereby calling for a more in-depth study. It would be more beneficial if more knowledge of endophytes’ ecology and their molecular interaction is made available for harnessing and application in agriculture. This research will have a progressive impact on the environment in the direction of chemical fertilizer–free cultivation and better contribution to the economy. Also, the optimization of growth conditions as well as nutrient media for the endophytes having enormous potential to be applied particularly in pharmaceutical and agricultural sectors needs to be done at the earliest. “Omics” combined with recent computational data mining tools can help unravel the functions of complex plant microbiome, which can provide us with more competent microbes as far as stress tolerance and enhancing the bioactive metabolites is concerned.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

References

• 1

  AbdelazizM. E.KimD.AliS.FedoroffN. V.Al-BabiliS. (2017). The endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica enhances Arabidopsis thaliana growth and modulates Na⁺/K⁺ homeostasis under salt stress conditions.Plant Sci.263107–115. 10.1016/J.PLANTSCI.2017.07.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 2

  AchariG. A.RameshR. (2019). Colonization of Eggplant by endophytic bacteria antagonistic to Ralstonia solanacearum, the Bacterial Wilt Pathogen.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. India Sect. B Biol. Sci.89585–593. 10.1007/S40011-018-0972-2/FIGURES/3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 3

  AfzalI.IqrarI.Shinwari ZabtaK.YasminA. (2017). Plant growth-promoting potential of endophytic bacteria isolated from roots of wild Dodonaea viscosa L.Plant Growth Regul.81399–408. 10.1007/s10725-016-0216-5/Published

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 4

  AfzalI.ShinwariZ. K.SikandarS.ShahzadS. (2019). Plant beneficial endophytic bacteria: mechanisms, diversity, host range and genetic determinants.Microbiol. Res.22136–49. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2019.02.001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 5

  AfzalS.BegumN.ZhaoH.FangZ.LouL.CaiQ. (2017). Influence of endophytic root bacteria on the growth, cadmium tolerance and uptake of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.).J. Appl. Microbiol.123498–510. 10.1111/JAM.13505

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 6

  AgishaV. N.EapenJ. S.BhaiS.AundyK. (2017). Detecting and monitoring endophytic colonization by Pseudomonas putida BP25 in black pepper (Piper nigrum L.) using quantitative real-time PCR exploitation of antimicrobial and growth promotive traits of Methylobacterium for the production and protection.Artic. J. Spices Aromat. Crops261–7. 10.25081/josac.2017.v26.i1.812

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 7

  Akbari KiaroodS. L.RahnamaK.GolmohammadiM.NasrollanejadS. (2020). Quorum-quenching endophytic bacteria inhibit disease caused by Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae in citrus cultivars.J. Basic Microbiol.60746–757. 10.1002/JOBM.202000038

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 8

  AliS.CharlesT. C.GlickB. R. (2014). Amelioration of high salinity stress damage by plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes that contain ACC deaminase.Plant Physiol. Biochem.80160–167. 10.1016/J.PLAPHY.2014.04.003

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 9

  AlibrandiP.CardinaleM.RahmanM. M.StratiF.CináP.de VianaM. L.et al (2018). The seed endosphere of Anadenanthera colubrina is inhabited by a complex microbiota, including Methylobacterium spp. and Staphylococcus spp. with potential plant-growth promoting activities.Plant Soil42281–99. 10.1007/S11104-017-3182-4/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 10

  AlijaniZ.AminiJ.AshengrophM.BahramnejadB. (2019). Antifungal activity of volatile compounds produced by Staphylococcus sciuri strain MarR44 and its potential for the biocontrol of Colletotrichum nymphaeae, causal agent strawberry anthracnose.Int. J. Food Microbiol.307:108276. 10.1016/J.IJFOODMICRO.2019.108276

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 11

  AloriE. T.BabalolaO. O. (2018). Microbial inoculants for improving crop quality and human health in Africa.Front. Microbiol.9:2213. 10.3389/FMICB.2018.02213/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 12

  AroraD.ChashooG.SingamaneniV.SharmaN.GuptaP.JaglanS. (2018). Bacillus amyloliquefaciens induces production of a novel blennolide K in coculture of Setophoma terrestris.J. Appl. Microbiol.124730–739. 10.1111/JAM.13683

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 13

  AroraM.SaxenaP.ChoudharyD. K.AbdinM. Z.VarmaA. (2016). Dual symbiosis between Piriformospora indica and Azotobacter chroococcum enhances the artemisinin content in Artemisia annua L.World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.3219. 10.1007/s11274-015-1972-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 14

  AsghariS.HarighiB.AshengrophM.ClementC.AzizA.EsmaeelQ.et al (2020). Induction of systemic resistance to Agrobacterium tumefaciens by endophytic bacteria in grapevine.Plant Pathol.69827–837. 10.1111/PPA.13175

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 15

  Aydi Ben AbdallahR.Mokni-TliliS.NefziA.Jabnoun-KhiareddineH.Daami-RemadiM. (2016). Biocontrol of Fusarium wilt and growth promotion of tomato plants using endophytic bacteria isolated from Nicotiana glauca organs.Biol. Control9780–88. 10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2016.03.005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 16

  BabuA. G.SheaP. J.SudhakarD.JungI. B.OhB. T. (2015). Potential use of Pseudomonas koreensis AGB-1 in association with Miscanthus sinensis to remediate heavy metal(loid)-contaminated mining site soil.J. Environ. Manage.151160–166. 10.1016/J.JENVMAN.2014.12.045

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 17

  BagdeU. S.PrasadR.VarmaA. (2014). Impact of culture filtrate of Piriformospora indica on biomass and biosynthesis of active ingredient aristolochic acid in Aristolochia elegans Mart.Int. J. Biol.629–37. 10.5539/ijb.v6n1p29

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 18

  BaiF.MorimotoY. V.YoshimuraS. D. J.HaraN.Kami-IkeN.NambaK.et al (2014). Assembly dynamics and the roles of FliI ATPase of the bacterial flagellar export apparatus.Sci. Rep.4:6528. 10.1038/srep06528

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 19

  BalsanelliE.Tadra-SfeirM. Z.FaoroH.PankieviczV. C.de BauraV. A.PedrosaF. O.et al (2016). Molecular adaptations of Herbaspirillum seropedicae during colonization of the maize rhizosphere.Environ. Microbiol.182343–2356. 10.1111/1462-2920.12887/SUPPINFO

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 20

  BalsanelliE.TuleskiT. R.de BauraV. A.YatesM. G.ChubatsuL. S.de Oliveira PedrosaF.et al (2013). Maize root lectins mediate the interaction with Herbaspirillum seropedicae via N-Acetyl glucosamine residues of Lipopolysaccharides.PLoS One8:e77001. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0077001

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 21

  BanY.XuZ.YangY.ZhangH.ChenH.TangM. (2017). Effect of dark septate endophytic fungus Gaeumannomyces cylindrosporus on plant growth, photosynthesis and Pb tolerance of maize (Zea mays L.).Pedosphere27283–292. 10.1016/S1002-0160(17)60316-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 22

  BanikA.MukhopadhayaS. K.SahanaA.DasD.DangarT. K. (2016). Fluorescence resonance energy transfer (FRET)-based technique for tracking of endophytic bacteria in rice roots.Biol. Fertil. Soils52277–282. 10.1007/S00374-015-1064-6/FIGURES/4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 23

  BarnawalD.BhartiN.PandeyS. S.PandeyA.ChanotiyaC. S.KalraA. (2017). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria enhance wheat salt and drought stress tolerance by altering endogenous phytohormone levels and TaCTR1/TaDREB2 expression.Physiol. Plant.161502–514. 10.1111/PPL.12614

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 24

  BarnawalD.BhartiN.TripathiA.PandeyS. S.ChandanS.KalraA. (2016). ACC-deaminase-producing endophyte brachybacterium paraconglomeratum strain SMR20 ameliorates chlorophytum salinity stress via altering phytohormone generation.J. Plant Growth Regul.35553–564. 10.1007/s00344-015-9560-3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 25

  BashirS.IqbalA.HasnainS.WhiteJ. F. (2021). Screening of sunflower associated bacteria as biocontrol agents for plant growth promotion.Arch. Microbiol.2034901–4912. 10.1007/S00203-021-02463-8/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 26

  BeauregardP. B.ChaiY.VlamakisH.LosickR.KolterR. (2013). Bacillus subtilis biofilm induction by plant polysaccharides.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.110E1621–E1630. 10.1073/PNAS.1218984110/-/DCSUPPLEMENTAL

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 27

  BhartiN.PandeyS. S.BarnawalD.PatelV. K.KalraA. (2016). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria Dietzia natronolimnaea modulates the expression of stress responsive genes providing protection of wheat from salinity stress.Sci. Rep.634768. 10.1038/srep34768

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 28

  BhiseK. K.BhagwatP. K.DandgeP. B. (2017). Synergistic effect of Chryseobacterium gleum sp. SUK with ACC deaminase activity in alleviation of salt stress and plant growth promotion in Triticum aestivum L.3 Biotech71–13. 10.1007/S13205-017-0739-0/TABLES/3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 29

  BhutaniN.MaheshwariR.NegiM.SunejaP. (2018a). Optimization of IAA production by endophytic Bacillus spp. from Vigna radiata for their potential use as plant growth promoters.Isr. J. Plant Sci.6583–96. 10.1163/22238980-00001025

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 30

  BhutaniN.MaheshwariR.SunejaP. (2018b). Isolation and characterization of plant growth promoting endophytic bacteria isolated from Vigna radiata-Indian Journals.Indian J. Agric. Res.52593–603.

  • Google Scholar

• 31

  BhutaniN.MaheshwariR.KumarP.SunejaP. (2021). Bioprospecting of endophytic bacteria from nodules and roots of Vigna radiata, Vigna unguiculata and Cajanus cajan for their potential use as bioinoculants.Plant Gene28100326. 10.1016/J.PLGENE.2021.100326

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 32

  BilalS.KhanA. L.ShahzadR.KimY. H.ImranM.KhanM. J.et al (2018). Mechanisms of Cr (VI) resistance by endophytic Sphingomonas sp. LK11 and its Cr(VI) phytotoxic mitigating effects in soybean (Glycine max L.).Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.164648–658. 10.1016/J.ECOENV.2018.08.043

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 33

  BlahaD.Prigent-CombaretC.MirzaM. S.Moënne-LoccozY. (2006). Phylogeny of the 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase-encoding gene acdS in phytobeneficial and pathogenic Proteobacteria and relation with strain biogeography.FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.56455–470. 10.1111/J.1574-6941.2006.00082.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 34

  BlumerC.HaasD. (2000). Mechanism, regulation, and ecological role of bacterial cyanide biosynthesis.Arch. Microbiol.173170–177. 10.1007/S002039900127

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 35

  BogasA. C.FerreiraA. J.AraújoW. L.Astolfi-FilhoS.KitajimaE. W.LacavaP. T.et al (2015). Endophytic bacterial diversity in the phyllosphere of Amazon Paullinia cupana associated with asymptomatic and symptomatic anthracnose.Springerplus41–13. 10.1186/S40064-015-1037-0/FIGURES/8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 36

  BonillaA.SarriaA. L. F.AlgarE.Muñoz LedesmaF. J.Ramos SolanoB.FernandesJ. B.et al (2014). Microbe associated molecular patterns from rhizosphere bacteria trigger germination and Papaver somniferum metabolism under greenhouse conditions.Plant Physiol. Biochem.74133–140. 10.1016/J.PLAPHY.2013.11.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 37

  BrígidoC.MenéndezE.PaçoA.GlickB. R.BeloA.FélixM. R.et al (2019). Mediterranean native leguminous plants: a reservoir of endophytic bacteria with potential to enhance chickpea growth under stress conditions.Microorganisms7:392. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS7100392

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 38

  BulgarelliD.RottM.SchlaeppiK.Ver Loren van ThemaatE.AhmadinejadN.AssenzaF.et al (2012). Revealing structure and assembly cues for Arabidopsis root-inhabiting bacterial microbiota.Nature48891–95. 10.1038/nature11336

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 39

  BuschartA.SachsS.ChenX.HerglotzJ.KrauseA.Reinhold-HurekB. (2012). Flagella mediate endophytic competence rather than act as MAMPS in rice–Azoarcus sp. Strain BH72 interactions.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.25191–199. 10.1094/MPMI-05-11-0138

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 40

  ButaiteE.BaumgartnerM.WyderS.KümmerliR. (2017). Siderophore cheating and cheating resistance shape competition for iron in soil and freshwater Pseudomonas communities.Nat. Commun.8414. 10.1038/s41467-017-00509-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 41

  CanariniA.KaiserC.MerchantA.RichterA.WanekW. (2019). Root exudation of primary metabolites: mechanisms and their roles in plant responses to environmental stimuli.Front. Plant Sci.10:157. 10.3389/FPLS.2019.00157/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 42

  CarvalhaisL. C.MuzziF.TanC. H.Hsien-ChooJ.SchenkP. M. (2013). Plant growth in Arabidopsis is assisted by compost soil-derived microbial communities.Front. Plant Sci.4:235. 10.3389/FPLS.2013.00235/ABSTRACT

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 43

  CastanheiraN. L.DouradoA. C.PaisI.SemedoJ.Scotti-CamposP.BorgesN.et al (2017). Colonization and beneficial effects on annual ryegrass by mixed inoculation with plant growth promoting bacteria.Microbiol. Res.19847–55. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2017.01.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 44

  CastanheiraN.DouradoA. C.KruzS.AlvesP. I. L.Delgado-RodríguezA. I.PaisI.et al (2016). Plant growth-promoting Burkholderia species isolated from annual ryegrass in Portuguese soils.J. Appl. Microbiol.120724–739. 10.1111/JAM.13025

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 45

  ChaudharyA. K.DhakalD.SohngJ. K. (2013). An insight into the “-Omics” based engineering of streptomycetes for secondary metabolite overproduction.Biomed. Res. Int.2013:968518. 10.1155/2013/968518

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 46

  ChenZ. J.ShengX. F.HeL. Y.HuangZ.ZhangW. H. (2013). Effects of root inoculation with bacteria on the growth, Cd uptake and bacterial communities associated with rape grown in Cd-contaminated soil.J. Hazard. Mater.244–245709–717. 10.1016/J.JHAZMAT.2012.10.063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 47

  CohenA. C.BottiniR.PontinM.BerliF. J.MorenoD.BoccanlandroH.et al (2015). Azospirillum brasilense ameliorates the response of Arabidopsis thaliana to drought mainly via enhancement of ABA levels.Physiol. Plant.15379–90. 10.1111/PPL.12221

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 48

  Dal CortivoC.BarionG.VisioliG.MattarozziM.MoscaG.VameraliT. (2017). Increased root growth and nitrogen accumulation in common wheat following PGPR inoculation: assessment of plant-microbe interactions by ESEM.Agric. Ecosyst. Environ.247396–408. 10.1016/J.AGEE.2017.07.006

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 49

  DalalJ. M.KulkarniN. S.BodhankarM. G. (2015). Utilization of indigenous endophytic microbes for induction of systemic resistance (ISR) in soybean (Glycine max (L) Merril) against challenge inoculation with F. oxysporum.Res. Biotechnol.610–25.

  • Google Scholar

• 50

  de SouzaR.AmbrosiniA.PassagliaL. M. P. (2015). Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils.Genet. Mol. Biol.38401–419. 10.1590/S1415-475738420150053

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 51

  DepluverezS.DevosS.DevreeseB. (2016). The role of bacterial secretion systems in the virulence of gram-negative airway pathogens associated with cystic fibrosis.Front. Microbiol.7:1336. 10.3389/FMICB.2016.01336/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 52

  DheemanS.MaheshwariK.DubeyR. C.KumarS.BaliyanN.DhimanS.et al (2019). “Harnessing beneficial Bacillus in Productivity improvement of food security crops of Himalayan agro-climatic zones,” in Field Crops: Sustainable Management by PGPR, edsMaheshwariD. K.DheemanS. (Cham: Springer), 105–143. 10.1007/978-3-030-30926-8_5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 53

  DholeA.ShelatH.VyasR.JhalaY.BhangeM. (2016). Endophytic occupation of legume root nodules by nifH-positive non-rhizobial bacteria, and their efficacy in the groundnut (Arachis hypogaea).Ann. Microbiol.661397–1407. 10.1007/S13213-016-1227-1/FIGURES/3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 54

  DhunganaS. A.ItohK. (2019). Effects of co-inoculation of indole-3-acetic acid-producing and -degrading bacterial endophytes on plant growth.Horticulturae5:17. 10.3390/HORTICULTURAE5010017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 55

  DimkpaC. (2016). Endocytobiosis and cell research microbial siderophores: production, detection and application in agriculture and environment.Endocytobiosis Cell Res.277–16.

  • Google Scholar

• 56

  DongC. J.WangL. L.LiQ.ShangQ. M. (2019). Bacterial communities in the rhizosphere, phyllosphere and endosphere of tomato plants.PLoS One14:e0223847. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0223847

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 57

  dos SantosM. L.BerlitzD. L.WiestS. L. F.SchünemannR.KnaakN.FiuzaL. M. (2018). Benefits associated with the interaction of endophytic bacteria and plants.Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol.611–11. 10.1590/1678-4324-2018160431

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 58

  DuC.van WezelG. P. (2018). Mining for microbial gems: integrating proteomics in the postgenomic natural product discovery pipeline.Proteomics18:1700332. 10.1002/PMIC.201700332

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 59

  DubeyA.SaiyamD.KumarA.HashemA.AbduallahE. F.KhanM. L. (2021). Bacterial root endophytes: characterization of their competence and plant growth promotion in soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) under drought stress.Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health18:931. 10.3390/IJERPH18030931

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 60

  DubeyR. C.KhareS.KumarP.MaheshwariD. K. (2014). Combined effect of chemical fertilisers and rhizosphere-competent Bacillus subtilis BSK17 on yield of Cicer arietinum.Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot.472305–2318. 10.1080/03235408.2013.876744

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 61

  DucaD.LorvJ.PattenC. L.RoseD.GlickB. R. (2014). Indole-3-acetic acid in plant-microbe interactions.Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek10685–125. 10.1007/S10482-013-0095-Y/FIGURES/8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 62

  DudejaS. S.GiriR.SainiR.Suneja-MadanP.KotheE. (2012). Interaction of endophytic microbes with legumes.J. Basic Microbiol.52248–260. 10.1002/JOBM.201100063

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 63

  DudejaS. S.Suneja-MadanP.PaulM.MaheswariR.KotheE. (2021). Bacterial endophytes: molecular interactions with their hosts.J. Basic Microbiol.61475–505. 10.1002/JOBM.202000657

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 64

  EgamberdievaD.WirthS. J.ShuriginV. V.HashemA.Abd AllahE. F. (2017). 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. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.01887/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 65

  Ek-RamosM. J.Gomez-FloresR.Orozco-FloresA. A.Rodríguez-PadillaC.González-OchoaG.Tamez-GuerraP. (2019). Bioactive products from plant-endophytic gram-positive bacteria.Front. Microbiol.10:463. 10.3389/FMICB.2019.00463/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 66

  ElbeltagyA.NishiokaK.SuzukiH.SatoT.SatoY. I.MorisakiH.et al (2000). Isolation and characterization of endophytic bacteria from wild and traditionally cultivated rice varieties.Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.46617–629. 10.1080/00380768.2000.10409127

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 67

  EtesamiH.AlikhaniH. A.HosseiniH. M. (2015). Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) production trait, a useful screening to select endophytic and rhizosphere competent bacteria for rice growth promoting agents.MethodsX272–78. 10.1016/J.MEX.2015.02.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 68

  FaddettaT.AbbateL.AlibrandiP.ArancioW.SiinoD.StratiF.et al (2021). The endophytic microbiota of Citrus limon is transmitted from seed to shoot highlighting differences of bacterial and fungal community structures.Sci. Rep.11:7078. 10.1038/s41598-021-86399-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 69

  FanB.ChenX. H.BudiharjoA.BleissW.VaterJ.BorrissR. (2011). Efficient colonization of plant roots by the plant growth promoting bacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42, engineered to express green fluorescent protein.J. Biotechnol.151303–311. 10.1016/J.JBIOTEC.2010.12.022

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 70

  FanX.YangR.QiuS.CaiX.ZouH.HuF. (2016). The Endo-β-1,4-glucanase of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens is required for optimum endophytic colonization of plants.J. Microbiol. Biotechnol.26946–952. 10.4014/JMB.1512.12055

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 71

  FardE. M.GhabooliM.MehriN.BakhshiB. (2017). Regulation of miR159 and miR396 mediated by Piriformospora indica confer drought tolerance in rice.J. Plant Mol. Breed.510–18. 10.22058/JPMB.2017.60864.1129

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 72

  FerchichiN.ToukabriW.BoularessM.SmaouiA.MhamdiR.TrabelsiD. (2019). Isolation, identification and plant growth promotion ability of endophytic bacteria associated with lupine root nodule grown in Tunisian soil.Arch. Microbiol.2011333–1349. 10.1007/S00203-019-01702-3/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 73

  Fernández-LlamosasH.DíazE.CarmonaM. (2021). Motility, adhesion and c-di-GMP influence the endophytic colonization of rice by Azoarcus sp. CIB.Microorganisms9:554. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS9030554

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 74

  FrankA. C.GuzmánJ. P. S.ShayJ. E. (2017). Transmission of bacterial endophytes.Microorganisms5:70. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS5040070

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 75

  GaoH.ZhouX.GouZ.ZhuoY.FuC.LiuM.et al (2010). Rational design for over-production of desirable microbial metabolites by precision engineering.Antonie van Leeuwenhoek98151–163. 10.1007/S10482-010-9442-4/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 76

  GaoY.LiuQ.ZangP.LiX.JiQ.HeZ.et al (2015). An endophytic bacterium isolated from Panax ginseng C.A. Meyer enhances growth, reduces morbidity, and stimulates ginsenoside biosynthesis.Phytochem. Lett.11132–138. 10.1016/J.PHYTOL.2014.12.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 77

  GautamK.TripathiJ. K.PareekA.SharmaD. K. (2019). Growth and secretome analysis of possible synergistic interaction between green algae and cyanobacteria.J. Biosci. Bioeng.127213–221. 10.1016/J.JBIOSC.2018.07.005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 78

  GhaffariM. R.MirzaeiM.GhabooliM.KhatabiB.WuY.Zabet-MoghaddamM.et al (2019). Root endophytic fungus Piriformospora indica improves drought stress adaptation in barley by metabolic and proteomic reprogramming.Environ. Exp. Bot.157197–210. 10.1016/J.ENVEXPBOT.2018.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 79

  GlassnerH.Zchori-FeinE.YaronS.SessitschA.SauerU.CompantS. (2018). Bacterial niches inside seeds of Cucumis melo L.Plant Soil422101–113. 10.1007/S11104-017-3175-3/FIGURES/7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 80

  GlickB. R. (2012). Plant growth-promoting bacteria: mechanisms and applications.Scientifica (Cairo)20121–15. 10.6064/2012/963401

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 81

  GlickB. R. (2014). Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world.Microbiol. Res.16930–39. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2013.09.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 82

  GlickB. R.ChengZ.CzarnyJ.DuanJ. (2007). “Promotion of plant growth by ACC deaminase-producing soil bacteria,” in New Perspect. Approaches Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Research, edsBakkerP. A. H. M.RaaijmakersJ. M.BloembergG.HöfteM.LemanceauP.CookeB. M. (Dordrecht: Springer), 329–339. 10.1007/978-1-4020-6776-1_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 83

  GondS. K.BergenM. S.TorresM. S.WhiteJ. F.KharwarR. N. (2015). Effect of bacterial endophyte on expression of defense genes in Indian popcorn against Fusarium moniliforme.Symbiosis66133–140. 10.1007/S13199-015-0348-9/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 84

  GoraiP. S.GhoshR.MandalS.GhoshS.ChatterjeeS.GondS. K.et al (2021). Bacillus siamensis CNE6- a multifaceted plant growth promoting endophyte of Cicer arietinum L. having broad spectrum antifungal activities and host colonizing potential.Microbiol. Res.252:126859. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2021.126859

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 85

  GuptaG.PanwarJ.AkhtarM. S.JhaP. N. (2012). Endophytic nitrogen-fixing bacteria as biofertilizer.Sustain. Agric. Rev.11183–221. 10.1007/978-94-007-5449-2_8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 86

  HamiltonC. E.GundelP. E.HelanderM.SaikkonenK. (2012). Endophytic mediation of reactive oxygen species and antioxidant activity in plants: a review.Fungal Divers.541–10. 10.1007/S13225-012-0158-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 87

  HardoimP. R.van OverbeekL. S.van ElsasJ. D. (2008). Properties of bacterial endophytes and their proposed role in plant growth.Trends Microbiol.16463–471. 10.1016/J.TIM.2008.07.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 88

  HardoimP. R.van OverbeekL. S.BergG.PirttiläA. M.CompantS.CampisanoA.et al (2015). The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes.Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev.79293–320. 10.1128/MMBR.00050-14

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 89

  HazarikaD. J.GoswamiG.GautomT.ParveenA.DasP.BarooahM.et al (2019). Lipopeptide mediated biocontrol activity of endophytic Bacillus subtilis against fungal phytopathogens.BMC Microbiol.19:71. 10.1186/S12866-019-1440-8/FIGURES/4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 90

  Hernández-SoberanoC.Ruíz-HerreraL. F.Valencia-CanteroE. (2020). Endophytic bacteria Arthrobacter agilis UMCV2 and Bacillus methylotrophicus M4-96 stimulate achene germination, in vitro growth, and greenhouse yield of strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa).Sci. Hortic. (Amsterdam)261:109005. 10.1016/J.SCIENTA.2019.109005

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 91

  HuH.GaoY.LiX.ChenS.YanS.TianX. (2020). Identification and nematicidal characterization of proteases secreted by endophytic bacteria Bacillus cereus BCM2.Phytopathology110336–344. 10.1094/PHYTO-05-19-0164-R/ASSET/IMAGES/LARGE/PHYTO-05-19-0164-R_F7.JPEG

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 92

  IqbalZ.IqbalM. S.HashemA.Abd-AllahE. F.AnsariM. I. (2021). Plant defense responses to biotic stress and its interplay with fluctuating dark/light conditions.Front. Plant Sci.12:297. 10.3389/FPLS.2021.631810/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 93

  IrizarryI.WhiteJ. F. (2018). Bacillus amyloliquefaciens alters gene expression, ROS production and lignin synthesis in cotton seedling roots.J. Appl. Microbiol.1241589–1603. 10.1111/JAM.13744

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 94

  IssaA.EsmaeelQ.SanchezL.CourteauxB.GuiseJ. F.GibonY.et al (2018). Impacts of Paraburkholderia phytofirmans strain PsJN on tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.) under high temperature.Front. Plant Sci.871:1397. 10.3389/FPLS.2018.01397/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 95

  JanR.KhanM. A.AsafS.Lubna, LeeI. J.KimK. M. (2019). Metal resistant endophytic bacteria reduces cadmium, nickel toxicity, and enhances expression of metal stress related genes with improved growth of Oryza sativa, via regulating its antioxidant machinery and endogenous hormones.Plants8:363. 10.3390/PLANTS8100363

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 96

  JawedK.YazdaniS. S.KoffasM. A. (2019). Advances in the development and application of microbial consortia for metabolic engineering.Metab. Eng. Commun.9:e00095. 10.1016/J.MEC.2019.E00095

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 97

  JhaP.PanwarJ.JhaP. N. (2018). Mechanistic insights on plant root colonization by bacterial endophytes: a symbiotic relationship for sustainable agriculture.Environ. Sustain.125–38. 10.1007/S42398-018-0011-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 98

  JohnstonP. R.SutherlandP. W.JosheeS. (2006). Visualising endophytic fungi within leaves by detection of (1→3)-ß-d-glucans in fungal cell walls.Mycologist20159–162. 10.1016/J.MYCOL.2006.10.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 99

  KandelS. L.JoubertP. M.DotyS. L. (2017a). Bacterial endophyte colonization and distribution within plants.Microorganisms5:77. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS5040077

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 100

  KandelS. L.FirrincieliA.JoubertP. M.OkubaraP. A.LestonN. D.McGeorgeK. M.et al (2017b). An in vitro study of bio-control and plant growth promotion potential of salicaceae endophytes.Front. Microbiol.8:386. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.00386/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 101

  KandelS. L.HerschbergerN.KimS. H.DotyS. L. (2015). Diazotrophic endophytes of poplar and willow for growth promotion of rice plants in nitrogen-limited conditions.Crop Sci.551765–1772. 10.2135/CROPSCI2014.08.0570

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 102

  KaulS.SharmaT.DharM. K. (2016). “Omics” tools for better understanding the plant–endophyte interactions.Front. Plant Sci.7:955. 10.3389/FPLS.2016.00955/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 103

  KawalekarJ. (2013). Role of biofertilizers and biopesticides for sustainable agriculture.J. Bio Innov.273–78.

  • Google Scholar

• 104

  KawasakiA.DonnS.RyanP. R.MathesiusU.DevillaR.JonesA.et al (2016). Microbiome and exudates of the root and rhizosphere of Brachypodium distachyon, a model for wheat.PLoS One11:e0164533. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0164533

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 105

  KhanA.Sirajuddin, ZhaoX. Q.JavedM. T.KhanK. S.BanoA.et al (2016). Bacillus pumilus enhances tolerance in rice (Oryza sativa L.) to combined stresses of NaCl and high boron due to limited uptake of Na⁺.Environ. Exp. Bot.124120–129. 10.1016/J.ENVEXPBOT.2015.12.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 106

  KhanM. A.AsafS.KhanA. L.JanR.KangS. M.KimK. M.et al (2020). Thermotolerance effect of plant growth-promoting Bacillus cereus SA1 on soybean during heat stress.BMC Microbiol.20:175. 10.1186/S12866-020-01822-7/FIGURES/6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 107

  KhanM. S.GaoJ.ChenX.ZhangM.YangF.DuY.et al (2020). Isolation and characterization of plant growth-promoting endophytic bacteria Paenibacillus polymyxa SK1 from Lilium lancifolium.Biomed. Res. Int.2020:8650957. 10.1155/2020/8650957

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 108

  KhanZ.DotyS. L. (2009). Characterization of bacterial endophytes of sweet potato plants.Plant Soil322197–207. 10.1007/S11104-009-9908-1/TABLES/3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 109

  KhanZ.RhoH.FirrincieliA.HungS. H.LunaV.MasciarelliO.et al (2016). Growth enhancement and drought tolerance of hybrid poplar upon inoculation with endophyte consortia.Curr. Plant Biol.638–47. 10.1016/J.CPB.2016.08.001

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 110

  KhareE.MishraJ.AroraN. K. (2018). Multifaceted interactions between endophytes and plant: developments and Prospects.Front. Microbiol.9:2732. 10.3389/FMICB.2018.02732/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 111

  KilamD.SaifiM.AbdinM. Z.AgnihotriA.VarmaA. (2017). Endophytic root fungus Piriformospora indica affects transcription of steviol biosynthesis genes and enhances production of steviol glycosides in Stevia rebaudiana.Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.9740–48. 10.1016/J.PMPP.2016.12.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 112

  KimN.JeonH. W.MannaaM.JeongS. I.KimJ.KimJ.et al (2019). Induction of resistance against pine wilt disease caused by Bursaphelenchus xylophilus using selected pine endophytic bacteria.Plant Pathol.68434–444. 10.1111/PPA.12960

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 113

  KowalskiK.KingsleyK.ButterworthS.ElmoreM.BrindisiL.WhiteJ. (2018). Endobiome Interference” As a Strategy to Curtail Aggressiveness of Invasive Plant Species.Available online at:https://eco.confex.com/eco/2018/meetingapp.cgi/Paper/72836(Accessed January 4, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 114

  KuldauG. A.YatesI. E. (2000). “Evidence for Fusarium endophytes in cultivated and wild plants,” in Microbial endophytesedsBaconC. W.WhiteJ. F.Jr. (New York, NY: Marcel Dekker), 85–117.

  • Google Scholar

• 115

  KumarA.DrobyS.SinghV. K.SinghS. K.WhiteJ. F. (2020). Entry, colonization, and distribution of endophytic microorganisms in plants.Microb. Endophytes1–33. 10.1016/B978-0-12-819654-0.00001-6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 116

  KumarA.Vandana, SinghM.SinghP. P.SinghS. K.SinghP. K.et al (2016). Isolation of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and their impact on growth and curcumin content in Curcuma longa L.Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.81–7. 10.1016/J.BCAB.2016.07.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 117

  KumarV.JainL.JainS. K.ChaturvediS.KaushalP. (2020). Bacterial endophytes of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and their potential for plant growth promotion and antagonistic activities.S. Af. J. Bot.13450–63. 10.1016/J.SAJB.2020.02.017

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 118

  KusariS.LamshöftM.KusariP.GottfriedS.ZühlkeS.LouvenK.et al (2014). Endophytes are hidden producers of maytansine in Putterlickia roots.J. Nat. Prod.772577–2584. 10.1021/NP500219A/SUPPL_FILE/NP500219A_SI_001.PDF

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 119

  LabancaE. R. G.AndradeS. A. L.KuramaeE. E.SilveiraA. P. D. (2020). The modulation of sugarcane growth and nutritional profile under aluminum stress is dependent on beneficial endophytic bacteria and plantlet origin.Appl. Soil Ecol.156103715. 10.1016/J.APSOIL.2020.103715

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 120

  LacavaP. T.Silva-StenicoM. E.AraújoW. L.SimionatoA. V. C.CarrilhoE.SiuM. T.et al (2008). Detection of siderophores in endophytic bacteria Methylobacterium spp. associated with Xylella fastidiosa subsp. pauca.Pesqui. Agropecuária Bras.43521–528. 10.1590/S0100-204X2008000400011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 121

  LamersJ.Van Der MeerT.TesterinkC. (2020). How plants sense and respond to stressful environments.Plant Physiol.1821624–1635. 10.1104/PP.19.01464

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 122

  LareenA.BurtonF.SchäferP. (2016). Plant root-microbe communication in shaping root microbiomes.Plant Mol. Biol.90575–587. 10.1007/S11103-015-0417-8

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 123

  LastochkinaO.GarshinaD.AllagulovaC.FedorovaK.KoryakovI.VladimirovaA. (2020). Application of endophytic Bacillus subtilis and salicylic acid to improve wheat growth and tolerance under combined drought and Fusarium root rot stresses.Agronomy10:1343. 10.3390/agronomy10091343

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 124

  LeonhardtT.SáckıJ.ŠimekP.ŠantrùèekJ.KotrbaP. (2014). Metallothionein-like peptides involved in sequestration of Zn in the Zn-accumulating ectomycorrhizal fungus Russula atropurpurea.Metallomics61693–1701. 10.1039/C4MT00141A

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 125

  LiY.ChengC.AnD. (2017). Characterisation of endophytic bacteria from a desert plant Lepidium perfoliatum L.Plant Prot. Sci.5332–43. 10.17221/14/2016-PPS

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 126

  LimaA. S.PrietoK. R.SantosC. S.Paula ValerioH.Garcia-OchoaE. Y.Huerta-RoblesA.et al (2018). In-vivo electrochemical monitoring of H₂O₂ production induced by root-inoculated endophytic bacteria in Agave tequilana leaves.Biosens. Bioelectron.99108–114. 10.1016/J.BIOS.2017.07.039

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 127

  LiscombeD. K.FacchiniP. J. (2008). Evolutionary and cellular webs in benzylisoquinoline alkaloid biosynthesis.Curr. Opin. Biotechnol.19173–180. 10.1016/J.COPBIO.2008.02.012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 128

  LiuH.ZhangL.MengA.ZhangJ.XieM.QinY.et al (2017a). Isolation and molecular identification of endophytic diazotrophs from seeds and stems of three cereal crops.PLoS One12:e0187383. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0187383

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 129

  LiuH.CarvalhaisL. C.CrawfordM.SinghE.DennisP. G.PieterseC. M. J.et al (2017b). Inner plant values: diversity, colonization and benefits from endophytic bacteria.Front. Microbiol.8:2552. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.02552/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 130

  LiuW.SunY.ShenR.DangX.LiuX.SuiF.et al (2018). A chemotaxis-like pathway of Azorhizobium caulinodans controls flagella-driven motility, which regulates biofilm formation, exopolysaccharide biosynthesis, and competitive nodulation.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.31737–749. 10.1094/MPMI-12-17-0290-R

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 131

  LiuX.LiuW.SunY.XiaC.ElmerichC.XieZ. (2018). A cheZ-like gene in Azorhizobium caulinodans is a key gene in the control of chemotaxis and colonization of the host plant.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.841827–1844. 10.1128/AEM.01827-17

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 132

  LodewyckxC.VangronsveldJ.PorteousF.MooreE. R. B.TaghaviS.MezgeayM.et al (2002). Endophytic bacteria and their potential applications.Crit. Rev. Plant Sci.21583–606. 10.1080/0735-260291044377

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 133

  Lòpez-FernàndezS.SonegoP.MorettoM.PancherM.EngelenK.PertotI.et al (2015). Whole-genome comparative analysis of virulence genes unveils similarities and differences between endophytes and other symbiotic bacteria.Front. Microbiol.6:419. 10.3389/FMICB.2015.00419/ABSTRACT

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 134

  LugtenbergB.KamilovaF. (2009). Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria.Annu. Rev. Microbiol.63541–556. 10.1146/ANNUREV.MICRO.62.081307.162918

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 135

  MaelaP. M. (2019). Current understanding of bacterial endophytes, their diversity, colonization and their roles in promoting plant growth.Appl. Microbiol.51–12. 10.4172/2471-9315.1000157

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 136

  MahaffeeW. F. (1994). Endophytic colonization of Phaseolus vulgaris by Pseudomonas fluorescens strain 89B-27 and Enterobacter asburiae strain JM22.Improv. Plant Product. Rhizobacteria.Available online at:https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/10015091111/(accessed March 29, 2022).

  • Google Scholar

• 137

  MaheshwariR.BhutaniN.BhardwajA.SunejaP. (2019a). Functional diversity of cultivable endophytes from Cicer arietinum and Pisum sativum: bioprospecting their plant growth potential.Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol.20:101229. 10.1016/J.BCAB.2019.101229

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 138

  MaheshwariR.BhutaniN.SunejaP. (2019b). Screening and characterization of siderophore producing endophytic bacteria from Cicer arietinum and Pisum sativum plants.J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol.77–14. 10.7324/JABB.2019.70502

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 139

  MaheshwariR.BhutaniN.SunejaP. (2020). Isolation and characterization of ACC deaminase producing endophytic Bacillus mojavensis PRN2 from Pisum sativum.Iran. J. Biotechnol.18:e2308. 10.30498/IJB.2020.137279.2308

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 140

  MaheshwariR.BhutaniN.KumarP.SunejaP. (2021). Plant growth promoting potential of multifarious endophytic Pseudomonas lini strain isolated from Cicer arietinum L.Isr. J. Plant Sci.11–11. 10.1163/22238980-BJA10047

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 141

  MaoJ.GongM.GuanQ. (2019). Induced disease resistance of endophytic bacteria REB01 to bacterial blight of rice.AIP Conf. Proc.2079:020017. 10.1063/1.5092395

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 142

  MarquesA. P. G. C.PiresC.MoreiraH.RangelA. O. S. S.CastroP. M. L. (2010). Assessment of the plant growth promotion abilities of six bacterial isolates using Zea mays as indicator plant.Soil Biol. Biochem.421229–1235. 10.1016/J.SOILBIO.2010.04.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 143

  Martínez-GilM.Yousef-CoronadoF.Espinosa-UrgelM. (2010). LapF, the second largest Pseudomonas putida protein, contributes to plant root colonization and determines biofilm architecture.Mol. Microbiol.77549–561. 10.1111/J.1365-2958.2010.07249.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 144

  MastanA.Vivek BabuC. S.HiremathC.SrinivasK. V. N. S.KumarA. N.KumarJ. K. (2019). Treatments with native Coleus forskohlii endophytes improve fitness and secondary metabolite production of some medicinal and aromatic plants.Int. Microbiol.23345–354. 10.1007/S10123-019-00108-X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 145

  MenesesC. H. S. G.RouwsL. F. M.Simões-AraújoJ. L.VidalM. S.BaldaniJ. I. (2011). Exopolysaccharide production is required for biofilm formation and plant colonization by the nitrogen-fixing endophyte Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.241448–1458. 10.1094/MPMI-05-11-0127

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 146

  MenesesC.GonçalvesT.AlquéresS.RouwsL.SerratoR.VidalM.et al (2017). Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus exopolysaccharide protects bacterial cells against oxidative stress in vitro and during rice plant colonization.Plant Soil416133–147. 10.1007/S11104-017-3201-5/FIGURES/8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 147

  MengistuA. A. (2020). Endophytes: colonization, behaviour, and their role in defense mechanism.Int. J. Microbiol.2020:6927219. 10.1155/2020/6927219

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 148

  MiliuteI.BuzaiteO.BaniulisD.BaniulisD.StanysV. (2015). Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops and their role in stress tolerance: a review.Zemdirb. Agric.102465–478. 10.13080/z-a.2015.102.060

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 149

  MinaminoT.MorimotoY. V.HaraN.AldridgeP. D.NambaK. (2016). The bacterial flagellar type III export gate complex is a dual fuel engine that can use Both H⁺ and Na⁺ for flagellar protein export.PLoS Pathog.12:e1005495. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PPAT.1005495

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 150

  MishraS.SahuP. K.AgarwalV.SinghN. (2021). Exploiting endophytic microbes as micro-factories for plant secondary metabolite production.Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol.1056579–6596. 10.1007/S00253-021-11527-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 151

  MohiteB. (2013). Isolation and characterization of indole acetic acid (IAA) producing bacteria from rhizospheric soil and its effect on plant growth.J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.13638–649. 10.4067/S0718-95162013005000051

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 152

  Montaño LópezJ.DuranL.AvalosJ. L. (2022). Physiological limitations and opportunities in microbial metabolic engineering.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.2035–48. 10.1038/s41579-021-00600-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 153

  MonteiroR. A.BalsanelliE.TuleskiT.FaoroH.CruzL. M.WassemR.et al (2012). Genomic comparison of the endophyte Herbaspirillum seropedicae SmR1 and the phytopathogen Herbaspirillum rubrisubalbicans M1 by suppressive subtractive hybridization and partial genome sequencing.FEMS Microbiol. Ecol.80441–451. 10.1111/J.1574-6941.2012.01309.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 154

  MotookaD.FujimotoK.TanakaR.YaguchiT.GotohK.MaedaY.et al (2017). Fungal ITS1 deep-sequencing strategies to reconstruct the composition of a 26-species community and evaluation of the gut mycobiota of healthy Japanese individuals.Front. Microbiol.8:238. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.00238/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 155

  MukherjeeA.SinghB. K.VermaJ. P. (2020). Harnessing chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) seed endophytes for enhancing plant growth attributes and bio-controlling against Fusarium sp.Microbiol. Res.237:126469. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2020.126469

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 156

  NaveedM.MitterB.YousafS.PastarM.AfzalM.SessitschA. (2013). The endophyte Enterobacter sp. FD17: a maize growth enhancer selected based on rigorous testing of plant beneficial traits and colonization characteristics.Biol. Fertil. Soils50249–262. 10.1007/S00374-013-0854-Y/TABLES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 157

  NeumannS.GrosseK.SourjikV. (2012). Chemotactic signaling via carbohydrate phosphotransferase systems in Escherichia coli.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10912159–12164. 10.1073/PNAS.1205307109/-/DCSUPPLEMENTAL

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 158

  NewmanM. A.SundelinT.NielsenJ. T.ErbsG. (2013). MAMP (microbe-associated molecular pattern) triggered immunity in plants.Front. Plant Sci.4:139. 10.3389/FPLS.2013.00139/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 159

  NguyenQ. T.MerloM. E.MedemaM. H.JankevicsA.BreitlingR.TakanoE. (2012). Metabolomics methods for the synthetic biology of secondary metabolism.FEBS Lett.5862177–2183. 10.1016/J.FEBSLET.2012.02.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 160

  NicolsonG. L. (2014). The Fluid—Mosaic Model of Membrane Structure: Still relevant to understanding the structure, function and dynamics of biological membranes after more than 40 years.Biochim. Biophys. Acta Biomembr.18381451–1466. 10.1016/J.BBAMEM.2013.10.019

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 161

  OteinoN.LallyR. D.KiwanukaS.LloydA.RyanD.GermaineK. J.et al (2015). Plant growth promotion induced by phosphate solubilizing endophytic Pseudomonas isolates.Front. Microbiol.6:745. 10.3389/FMICB.2015.00745/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 162

  PadmaperumaG.KapooreR. V.GilmourD. J.VaidyanathanS. (2017). Microbial consortia: a critical look at microalgae co-cultures for enhanced biomanufacturing.Crit. Rev. Biotechnol.38690–703. 10.1080/07388551.2017.1390728

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 163

  PalazzottoE.WeberT. (2018). Omics and multi-omics approaches to study the biosynthesis of secondary metabolites in microorganisms.Curr. Opin. Microbiol.45109–116. 10.1016/J.MIB.2018.03.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 164

  PandeyP. K.SamantaR.YadavR. N. S. (2015). Plant beneficial endophytic bacteria from the ethnomedicinal Mussaenda roxburghii (Akshap) of Eastern Himalayan Province, India.Adv. Biol.20151–8. 10.1155/2015/580510

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 165

  PankieviczV. C. S.Camilios-NetoD.BonatoP.BalsanelliE.Tadra-SfeirM. Z.FaoroH.et al (2016). RNA-seq transcriptional profiling of Herbaspirillum seropedicae colonizing wheat (Triticum aestivum) roots.Plant Mol. Biol.90589–603. 10.1007/s11103-016-0430-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 166

  PassariA. K.MishraV. K.LeoV. V.GuptaV. K.SinghB. P. (2016). Phytohormone production endowed with antagonistic potential and plant growth promoting abilities of culturable endophytic bacteria isolated from Clerodendrum colebrookianum Walp.Microbiol. Res.19357–73. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2016.09.006

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 167

  PatelJ. K.ArchanaG. (2017). Diverse culturable diazotrophic endophytic bacteria from Poaceae plants show cross-colonization and plant growth promotion in wheat.Plant Soil41799–116. 10.1007/S11104-017-3244-7/FIGURES/5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 168

  PatelJ. K.GohelK.PatelH.SolankiT. (2021). Wheat growth dependent succession of culturable endophytic bacteria and their plant growth promoting traits.Curr. Microbiol.784103–4114. 10.1007/S00284-021-02668-6/FIGURES/2

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 169

  Pimentel Esposito-PolesiN.Fiori De Abreu-TaraziM.Vieira De AlmeidaC.TsaiS. M.De AlmeidaM. (2017). Investigation of endophytic bacterial community in supposedly axenic cultures of pineapple and orchids with evidence on abundant intracellular bacteria.Curr. Microbiol.74103–113. 10.1007/s00284-016-1163-0

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 170

  PlettJ. M.MartinF. M. (2018). Know your enemy, embrace your friend: using omics to understand how plants respond differently to pathogenic and mutualistic microorganisms.Plant J.93729–746. 10.1111/TPJ.13802

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 171

  PonpandianL. N.RimS. O.ShanmugamG.JeonJ.ParkY. H.LeeS. K.et al (2019). Phylogenetic characterization of bacterial endophytes from four Pinus species and their nematicidal activity against the pine wood nematode.Sci. Rep.9:12457. 10.1038/s41598-019-48745-6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 172

  PootakhamW.MhuantongW.YoochaT.PutchimL.SonthirodC.NaktangC.et al (2017). High resolution profiling of coral-associated bacterial communities using full-length 16S rRNA sequence data from PacBio SMRT sequencing system.Sci. Rep.7:2774. 10.1038/s41598-017-03139-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 173

  QiangX.DingJ.LinW.LiQ.XuC.ZhengQ.et al (2019). Alleviation of the detrimental effect of water deficit on wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) growth by an indole acetic acid-producing endophytic fungus.Plant Soil439373–391. 10.1007/S11104-019-04028-7/FIGURES/10

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 174

  QinD.WangL.HanM.WangJ.SongH.YanX.et al (2018). Effects of an endophytic fungus Umbelopsis dimorphaon the secondary metabolites of host-plant Kadsura angustifolia.Front. Microbiol.9:2845. 10.3389/FMICB.2018.02845/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 175

  RamanujamB.RenukaS.ShyleshaA. N. (2016). Electron microscopic studies for confirmation of endophytic colonization of Beauveria bassiana in maize.J. Pure Appl. Microbiol.103017–3021. 10.22207/JPAM.10.4.72

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 176

  RanaK. L.KourD.KaurT.DeviR.YadavA. N.YadavN.et al (2020). Endophytic microbes: biodiversity, plant growth-promoting mechanisms and potential applications for agricultural sustainability Kusam Lata Rana and Divjot Kour contributed equally to the present review.Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek1131075–1107. 10.1007/s10482-020-01429-y

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 177

  RaniS.KumarP.SunejaP. (2021). Biotechnological interventions for inducing abiotic stress tolerance in crops.Plant Gene27:100315. 10.1016/J.PLGENE.2021.100315

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 178

  RashidS.CharlesT. C.GlickB. R. (2012). Isolation and characterization of new plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes.Appl. Soil Ecol.61217–224. 10.1016/J.APSOIL.2011.09.011

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 179

  ReimerA.MaffenbeierV.DubeyM.SentchiloV.TavaresD.GilM. H.et al (2017). Complete alanine scanning of the Escherichia coli RbsB ribose binding protein reveals residues important for chemoreceptor signaling and periplasmic abundance.Sci. Rep.7:8245. 10.1038/s41598-017-08035-5

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 180

  Reinhold-HurekB.HurekT. (2011). Living inside plants: bacterial endophytes.Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.14435–443. 10.1016/J.PBI.2011.04.004

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 181

  Ríos-RuizW. F.Alfredo Valdez-NuñezR.BedmarE. J.Castellano-HinojosaA.Ríos-RuizW. F.Valdez-NuñezR. A.et al (2019). “Utilization of endophytic bacteria isolated from legume root nodules for plant growth promotion,” in Field Crops: Sustainable Management by PGPR, edsMaheshwariD. K.DheemanS. (Cham: Springer), 145–176. 10.1007/978-3-030-30926-8_6

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 182

  Robertson-AlbertynS.TerrazasR. A.BalbirnieK.BlankM.JaniakA.SzarejkoI.et al (2017). Root hair mutations displace the barley rhizosphere microbiota.Front. Plant Sci.8:1094. 10.3389/FPLS.2017.01094/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 183

  RuizJ. A.BernarE. M.JungK. (2015). Production of siderophores increases resistance to fusaric acid in Pseudomonas protegens Pf-5.PLoS One10:e0117040. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0117040

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 184

  SalehD.SharmaM.SeguinP.JabajiS. (2020). Organic acids and root exudates of Brachypodium distachyon: effects on chemotaxis and biofilm formation of endophytic bacteria.Can. J. Microbiol.66562–575. 10.1139/cjm-2020-0041

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 185

  SamantaD.WidomJ.BorbatP. P.FreedJ. H.CraneB. R. (2016). Bacterial energy sensor aer modulates the activity of the chemotaxis kinase CheA based on the redox state of the flavin cofactor *.J. Biol. Chem.29125809–25814. 10.1074/JBC.C116.757492

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 186

  SangwanP.RajK.WatiL.KumarA. (2021). Isolation and evaluation of bacterial endophytes against Sclerospora graminicola (Sacc.) schroet, the causal of pearl millet downy mildew.Egypt. J. Biol. Pest Control311–11. 10.1186/S41938-021-00468-5/TABLES/4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 187

  SantoyoG.Moreno-HagelsiebG.del Carmen Orozco-MosquedaM.GlickB. R. (2016). Plant growth-promoting bacterial endophytes.Microbiol. Res.18392–99. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2015.11.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 188

  SapreS.Gontia-MishraI.TiwariS. (2018). Klebsiella sp. confers enhanced tolerance to salinity and plant growth promotion in oat seedlings (Avena sativa).Microbiol. Res.20625–32. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2017.09.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 189

  SarkarA.PramanikK.MitraS.SorenT.MaitiT. K. (2018). Enhancement of growth and salt tolerance of rice seedlings by ACC deaminase-producing Burkholderia sp. MTCC 12259.J. Plant Physiol.231434–442. 10.1016/J.JPLPH.2018.10.010

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 190

  ScharfB. E.HynesM. F.AlexandreG. M. (2016). Chemotaxis signaling systems in model beneficial plant-bacteria associations.Plant Mol. Biol.90549–559. 10.1007/s11103-016-0432-4

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 191

  SchmidtR.KöberlM.MostafaA.RamadanE. M.MonscheinM.JensenK. B.et al (2014). Effects of bacterial inoculants on the indigenous microbiome and secondary metabolites of chamomile plants.Front. Microbiol.5:64. 10.3389/FMICB.2014.00064/ABSTRACT

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 192

  SenthilkumarM.PushpakanthP.Arul JoseP.KrishnamoorthyR.AnandhamR. (2021). Diversity and functional characterization of endophytic Methylobacterium isolated from banana cultivars of South India and its impact on early growth of tissue culture banana plantlets.J. Appl. Microbiol.1312448–2465. 10.1111/JAM.15112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 193

  SessitschA.HardoimP.DöringJ.WeilharterA.KrauseA.WoykeT.et al (2011). Functional characteristics of an endophyte community colonizing rice roots as revealed by metagenomic analysis.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.2528–36. 10.1094/MPMI-08-11-0204

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 194

  ShahA. U.RajabH.JalalA.AjmalM.BangashS. A. K.AhmadD.et al (2020). Inoculation of Brassica napus L. genotypes with endophytic bacteria promote growth and alleviate cadmium toxicity.APS J. Anim. Plant Sci.301187–1193.

  • Google Scholar

• 195

  ShanmugamG.LeeS. K.JeonJ. (2018). Identification of potential nematicidal compounds against the pine wood nematode, Bursaphelenchus xylophilus through an in silico approach.Molecules.23:1828. 10.3390/MOLECULES23071828

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 196

  SharifaziziM.HarighiB.SadeghiA. (2017). Evaluation of biological control of Erwinia amylovora, causal agent of fire blight disease of pear by antagonistic bacteria.Biol. Control10428–34. 10.1016/J.BIOCONTROL.2016.10.007

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 197

  SharmaH.RaiA. K.DahiyaD.ChettriR.NigamP. S.SharmaH.et al (2021). Exploring endophytes for in vitro synthesis of bioactive compounds similar to metabolites produced in vivo by host plants.AIMS Microbiol.7175–199. 10.3934/MICROBIOL.2021012

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 198

  SharmaP.KharkwalA. C.AbdinM. Z.VarmaA. (2014). Piriformospora indica improves micropropagation, growth and phytochemical content of Aloe vera L. plants.Symbiosis6411–23. 10.1007/S13199-014-0298-7/FIGURES/8

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 199

  SharmaS. B.SayyedR. Z.TrivediM. H.GobiT. A. (2013). Phosphate solubilizing microbes: sustainable approach for managing phosphorus deficiency in agricultural soils.Springerplus21–14. 10.1186/2193-1801-2-587/FIGURES/3

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 200

  ShastryR. P.DolanS. K.AbdelhamidY.VittalR. R.WelchM. (2018). Purification and characterisation of a quorum quenching AHL-lactonase from the endophytic bacterium Enterobacter sp. CS66.FEMS Microbiol. Lett.365:54. 10.1093/FEMSLE/FNY054

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 201

  SheoranN.KumarA.MunjalV.NadakkakathA. V.EapenS. J. (2016). Pseudomonas putida BP25 alters root phenotype and triggers salicylic acid signaling as a feedback loop in regulating endophytic colonization in Arabidopsis thaliana.Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol.9399–111. 10.1016/J.PMPP.2016.01.008

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 202

  ShiP.ZhuK.ZhangY.ChaiT. (2016). Growth and cadmium accumulation of Solanum nigrum L. Seedling were enhanced by heavy metal-tolerant strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.Water. Air Soil Pollut.2271–11. 10.1007/S11270-016-3167-6/FIGURES/4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 203

  ShidoreT.DinseT.ÖhrleinJ.BeckerA.Reinhold-HurekB. (2012). Transcriptomic analysis of responses to exudates reveal genes required for rhizosphere competence of the endophyte Azoarcus sp. strain BH72.Environ. Microbiol.142775–2787. 10.1111/J.1462-2920.2012.02777.X

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 204

  ShinogiT.SuzukiT.KuriharaT.NarusakaY.ParkP.ShinogiT.et al (2003). Microscopic detection of reactive oxygen species generation in the compatible and incompatible interactions of Alternaria alternata Japanese pear pathotype and host plants.J. Gen. Plant Pathol.697–16. 10.1007/S10327-002-0013-Z

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 205

  SingerE.BushnellB.Coleman-DerrD.BowmanB.BowersR. M.LevyA.et al (2016). High-resolution phylogenetic microbial community profiling.ISME J.102020–2032. 10.1038/ismej.2015.249

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 206

  SinghB.SharmaR. A. (2016). Yield enhancement of phytochemicals by Azotobacter chroococcum biotization in hairy roots of Arnebia hispidissima.Ind. Crops Prod.81169–175. 10.1016/J.INDCROP.2015.11.068

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 207

  SinghR. P.ShelkeG. M.KumarA.JhaP. N. (2015). Biochemistry and genetics of ACC deaminase: a weapon to “stress ethylene” produced in plants.Front. Microbiol.6:937. 10.3389/FMICB.2015.00937/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 208

  Singh nee’ NigamP. (2009). “Production of bioactive secondary metabolites,” in Biotechnology for Agro-Industrial Residues Utilisation, edsSingh nee’ NigamP.PandeyA. (Dordrecht: Springer), 129–145. 10.1007/978-1-4020-9942-7_7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 209

  SoldanR.MapelliF.CrottiE.SchnellS.DaffonchioD.MarascoR.et al (2019). Bacterial endophytes of mangrove propagules elicit early establishment of the natural host and promote growth of cereal crops under salt stress.Microbiol. Res.223–22533–43. 10.1016/J.MICRES.2019.03.008

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 210

  SrinivasanR.KantwaS. R.SharmaK. K.ChaudharyM.PrasadM.RadhakrishnaA. (2018). Development and evaluation of phosphate solubilising microbial inoculants for fodder production in problem soils-Indian Journals.Range Manag. Agrofor.3977–89.

  • Google Scholar

• 211

  StearnsJ. C.GlickB. R. (2003). Transgenic plants with altered ethylene biosynthesis or perception.Biotechnol. Adv.21193–210. 10.1016/S0734-9750(03)00024-7

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 212

  StephensE.WolfJ.OeyM.ZhangE.HankamerB.RossI. L.et al (2015). “Genetic engineering for microalgae strain improvement in relation to biocrude production systems,” in Biomass and Biofuels from Microalga, edsMoheimaniN.McHenryM.de BoerK.BahriP. (Cham: Springer), 191–249. 10.1007/978-3-319-16640-7_11

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 213

  StierleA. A.StierleD. B.DecatoD.PriestleyN. D.AlversonJ. B.HoodyJ.et al (2017). The berkeleylactones, antibiotic macrolides from fungal coculture.J. Nat. Prod.801150–1160. 10.1021/ACS.JNATPROD.7B00133

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 214

  SuF.JacquardC.VillaumeS.MichelJ.RabenoelinaF.ClémentC.et al (2015). Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN reduces impact of freezing temperatures on photosynthesis in Arabidopsis thaliana.Front. Plant Sci.6:810. 10.3389/FPLS.2015.00810/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 215

  SuL.ShenZ.RuanY.TaoC.ChaoY.LiR.et al (2017). Isolation of antagonistic endophytes from banana roots against Meloidogyne javanica and their effects on soil nematode community.Front. Microbiol.8:2070. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.02070/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 216

  Suaìrez-MorenoZ. R.DevescoviG.MyersM.HallackL.Mendonça-PreviatoL.Caballero-MelladoJ.et al (2010). Commonalities and differences in regulation of N -Acyl homoserine lactone quorum sensing in the beneficial plant-associated Burkholderia species cluster.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.764302–4317. 10.1128/AEM.03086-09

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 217

  SubramanianP.MageswariA.KimK.LeeY.SaT. (2015). Psychrotolerant endophytic Pseudomonas sp. strains OB155 and OS261 induced chilling resistance in tomato plants (Solanum lycopersicum Mill.) by activation of their antioxidant capacity.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.281073–1081. 10.1094/MPMI-01-15-0021-R

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 218

  SunejaP.Singh DudejaS.DahiyaP. (2016). Deciphering the phylogenetic relationships among rhizobia nodulating chickpea: a review.J. Appl. Biol. Biotechnol.461–070. 10.7324/JABB.2016.40310

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 219

  SwarnalakshmiK.RajkhowaS.DharD. W.SenthilkumarM.SwarnalakshmiK.RajkhowaS.et al (2019). “Influence of endophytic bacteria on growth promotion and protection against diseases in associated plants,” in Microbial Interventions in Agriculture and Environment: Volume 3: Soil and Crop Health Management, edsSinghD. P.PrabhaR. (Berlin: Springer). 10.1007/978-981-32-9084-6_12

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 220

  TamásM. J.SharmaS. K.IbstedtS.JacobsonT.ChristenP. (2014). Heavy metals and metalloids as a cause for protein misfolding and aggregation.Biomolecules4252–267. 10.3390/BIOM4010252

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 221

  TangK.LiB.GuoS. (2014). An active endophytic fungus promoting growth and increasing salvianolic acid content of Salvia miltiorrhiza.Mycosystema33594–600.

  • Google Scholar

• 222

  Tashi-OshnoeiF.HarighiB.AbdollahzadehJ. (2017). Isolation and identification of endophytic bacteria with plant growth promoting and biocontrol potential from oak trees.For. Pathol.47:e12360. 10.1111/EFP.12360

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 223

  TauléC.CastilloA.VillarS.OlivaresF.BattistoniF. (2016). Endophytic colonization of sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) by the novel diazotrophs Shinella sp. UYSO24 and Enterobacter sp. UYSO10.Plant Soil403403–418. 10.1007/S11104-016-2813-5

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 224

  ThokchomE.ThakuriaD.KalitaM. C.SharmaC. K.TalukdarN. C. (2017). Root colonization by host-specific rhizobacteria alters indigenous root endophyte and rhizosphere soil bacterial communities and promotes the growth of mandarin orange.Eur. J. Soil Biol.7948–56. 10.1016/J.EJSOBI.2017.02.003

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 225

  ToumatiaO.CompantS.YekkourA.GoudjalY.SabaouN.MathieuF.et al (2016). Biocontrol and plant growth promoting properties of Streptomyces mutabilis strain IA1 isolated from a Saharan soil on wheat seedlings and visualization of its niches of colonization.S. Afr. J. Bot.105234–239. 10.1016/J.SAJB.2016.03.020

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 226

  TurnerT. R.JamesE. K.PooleP. S. (2013). The plant microbiome.Genome Biol.141–10. 10.1186/GB-2013-14-6-209/FIGURES/1

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 227

  UllahI.Al-JohnyB. O.Al-GhamdiK. M. S.Al-ZahraniH. A. A.AnwarY.FirozA.et al (2019). Endophytic bacteria isolated from Solanum nigrum L., alleviate cadmium (Cd) stress response by their antioxidant potentials, including SOD synthesis by sodA gene.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.174197–207. 10.1016/J.ECOENV.2019.02.074

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 228

  Van ZelmE.ZhangY.TesterinkC. (2020). Salt tolerance mechanisms of plants.Annu Rev Plant Biol.71403–433. 10.1146/ANNUREV-ARPLANT-050718-100005

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 229

  VandenkoornhuyseP.QuaiserA.DuhamelM.Le VanA.DufresneA. (2015). The importance of the microbiome of the plant holobiont.New Phytol.2061196–1206. 10.1111/NPH.13312

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 230

  VasilevaE. N. B. E.AkhtemovaG. A. A. ΓZhukovV. A. Bet al (2019). Endophytic microorganisms in fundamental research and agriculture.Ecol. Genet.1719–32. 10.17816/ecogen17119-32

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 231

  VermaH.KumarD.KumarV.KumariM.SinghS. K.SharmaV. K.et al (2021). The potential application of endophytes in management of stress from drought and salinity in crop plants.Microorganisms9:1729. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS9081729

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 232

  VermaS. K.KingsleyK.BergenM.EnglishC.ElmoreM.KharwarR. N.et al (2018). Bacterial endophytes from rice cut grass (Leersia oryzoides L.) increase growth, promote root gravitropic response, stimulate root hair formation, and protect rice seedlings from disease.Plant Soil422223–238. 10.1007/S11104-017-3339-1/FIGURES/6

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 233

  VimalS. R.PatelV. K.SinghJ. S. (2019). Plant growth promoting Curtobacterium albidum strain SRV4: an agriculturally important microbe to alleviate salinity stress in paddy plants.Ecol. Indic.105553–562. 10.1016/J.ECOLIND.2018.05.014

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 234

  ViscardiS.VentorinoV.DuranP.MaggioA.De PascaleS.MoraM. L.et al (2016). Assessment of plant growth promoting activities and abiotic stress tolerance of Azotobacter chroococcum strains for a potential use in sustainable agriculture.J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.16848–863. 10.4067/S0718-95162016005000060

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 235

  VoisardC.KeelC.HaasD.DefagoG. (1989). Cyanide production by Pseudomonas fluorescens helps suppress black root rot of tobacco under gnotobiotic conditions.EMBO J.8351–358. 10.1002/J.1460-2075.1989.TB03384.X

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 236

  VorholtJ. A. (2012). Microbial life in the phyllosphere.Nat. Rev. Microbiol.10828–840. 10.1038/nrmicro2910

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 237

  VurukondaS. S. K. P.GiovanardiD.StefaniE. (2021). Identification, evaluation and selection of a bacterial endophyte able to colonize tomato plants, enhance their growth and control Xanthomonas vesicatoria, the causal agent of the spot disease.Can. J. Plant Pathol.44, 1–16. 10.1080/07060661.2021.1980822

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 238

  WalitangD. I.KimK.MadhaiyanM.KimY. K.KangY.SaT. (2017). Characterizing endophytic competence and plant growth promotion of bacterial endophytes inhabiting the seed endosphere of Rice.BMC Microbiol.17:209. 10.1186/S12866-017-1117-0/FIGURES/4

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 239

  WangC.WangC.GaoY.-L.WangY.-P.GuoJ.-H. (2016). A consortium of three plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium strains acclimates Lycopersicon esculentum and confers a better tolerance to chilling stress.J. Plant Growth Regul.3554–64. 10.1007/s00344-015-9506-9

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 240

  WangM.WeibergA.DellotaE.YamaneD.JinH. (2017). Botrytis small RNA Bc-siR37 suppresses plant defense genes by cross-kingdom RNAi.RNA Biol.14421–428. 10.1080/15476286.2017.1291112

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 241

  WangW.WuZ.HeY.HuangY.LiX.YeB. C. (2018). Plant growth promotion and alleviation of salinity stress in Capsicum annuum L. by Bacillus isolated from saline soil in Xinjiang.Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf.164520–529. 10.1016/J.ECOENV.2018.08.070

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 242

  WaniZ. A.KumarA.SultanP.BinduK.Riyaz-Ul-HassanS.AshrafN. (2017). Mortierella alpina CS10E4, an oleaginous fungal endophyte of Crocus sativus L. enhances apocarotenoid biosynthesis and stress tolerance in the host plant.Sci. Rep7:8598. 10.1038/s41598-017-08974-z

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 243

  War NongkhlawF.JoshiS. (2017). Microscopic study on colonization and antimicrobial property of endophytic bacteria associated with ethnomedicinal plants of Meghalaya.J. Microsc. Ultrastruct.5132–139. 10.1016/J.JMAU.2016.09.002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 244

  WhiteJ. F.KingsleyK. L.ZhangQ.VermaR.ObiN.DvinskikhS.et al (2019). Review: endophytic microbes and their potential applications in crop management.Pest Manag. Sci.752558–2565. 10.1002/PS.5527

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 245

  WhiteJ. F.TorresM. S.SomuM. P.JohnsonH.IrizarryI.ChenQ.et al (2014). Hydrogen peroxide staining to visualize intracellular bacterial infections of seedling root cells.Microsc. Res. Tech.77566–573. 10.1002/JEMT.22375

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 246

  WieselL.NewtonA. C.ElliottI.BootyD.GilroyE. M.BirchP. R. J.et al (2014). Molecular effects of resistance elicitors from biological origin and their potential for crop protection.Front. Plant Sci.5:655. 10.3389/FPLS.2014.00655/ABSTRACT

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 247

  WorsleyS. F.MaceyM. C.PrudenceS. M.WilkinsonB.MurrellJ. C.HutchingsM. I. (2021). Investigating the role of root exudates in recruiting Streptomyces bacteria to the Arabidopsis thaliana microbiome.Mol. Front. J.8:541. 10.3389/fmolb.2021.686110

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 248

  XuC.RuanH.CaiW.StaehelinC.DaiW. (2021). Identification of an exopolysaccharide biosynthesis gene in Bradyrhizobium diazoefficiens USDA110.Microorganisms92490. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS9122490

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 249

  XuJ. X.LiZ. Y.LvX.YanH.ZhouG. Y.CaoL. X.et al (2020). Isolation and characterization of Bacillus subtilis strain 1-L-29, an endophytic bacteria from Camellia oleifera with antimicrobial activity and efficient plant-root colonization.PLoS One15:e0232096. 10.1371/JOURNAL.PONE.0232096

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 250

  XuL.WangA.WangJ.WeiQ.ZhangW. (2017). Piriformospora indica confers drought tolerance on Zea mays L. through enhancement of antioxidant activity and expression of drought-related genes.Crop J.5251–258. 10.1016/J.CJ.2016.10.002

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 251

  YanX.WangZ.MeiY.WangL.WangX.XuQ.et al (2018). Isolation, diversity, and growth-promoting activities of endophytic bacteria from tea cultivars of Zijuan and Yunkang-10.Front. Microbiol.9:1848. 10.3389/FMICB.2018.01848/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 252

  ZachowC.JahanshahG.De BruijnI.SongC.IanniF.PatajZ.et al (2015). The novel lipopeptide poaeamide of the endophyte Pseudomonas poae RE*1-1-14 is involved in pathogen suppression and root colonization.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.28800–810. 10.1094/MPMI-12-14-0406-R

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 253

  ZeidlerD.ZähringerU.GerberI.DuberyI.HartungT.BorsW.et al (2004). Innate immunity in Arabidopsis thaliana: lipopolysaccharides activate nitric oxide synthase (NOS) and induce defense genes.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.10115811–15816. 10.1073/PNAS.0404536101

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 254

  ZerroukI. Z.BenchabaneM.KhelifiL.YokawaK.Ludwig-MüllerJ.BaluskaF. (2016). A Pseudomonas strain isolated from date-palm rhizospheres improves root growth and promotes root formation in maize exposed to salt and aluminum stress.J. Plant Physiol.191111–119. 10.1016/J.JPLPH.2015.12.009

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 255

  ZhaiX.LuoD.LiX.HanT.JiaM.KongZ.et al (2018). Endophyte Chaetomium globosum D38 promotes bioactive constituents accumulation and root production in Salvia miltiorrhiza.Front. Microbiol.8:2694. 10.3389/FMICB.2017.02694/BIBTEX

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 256

  ZhangC.LiC.LiuJ.LvY.YuC.LiH.et al (2017). The OsABF1 transcription factor improves drought tolerance by activating the transcription of COR413-TM1 in rice.J. Exp. Bot.684695–4707. 10.1093/JXB/ERX260

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 257

  ZhangQ.AcuñaJ. J.InostrozaN. G.MoraM. L.RadicS.SadowskyM. J.et al (2019). Endophytic bacterial communities associated with roots and leaves of plants growing in chilean extreme environments.Sci. Rep.9:4950. 10.1038/s41598-019-41160-x

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 258

  ZhengY.LiangJ.ZhaoD. L.MengC.XuZ. C.XieZ. H.et al (2020). The root nodule microbiome of cultivated and wild halophytic legumes showed similar diversity but distinct community structure in Yellow River delta saline soils.Microorganisms8:207. 10.3390/MICROORGANISMS8020207

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 259

  ZhouL.ZhangY.GeY.ZhuX.PanJ. (2020). Regulatory mechanisms and promising applications of quorum sensing-inhibiting agents in control of bacterial biofilm formation.Front. Microbiol.11:2558. 10.3389/fmicb.2020.589640

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 260

  ZiemertN.AlanjaryM.WeberT. (2016). The evolution of genome mining in microbes – a review.Nat. Prod. Rep.33988–1005. 10.1039/C6NP00025H

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 261

  ZinN. M.IsmailA.MarkD. R.WestropG.SchnieteJ. K.HerronP. R. (2021). Adaptation to endophytic lifestyle through genome reduction by Kitasatospora sp. SUK42.Front. Bioeng. Biotechnol.9:740722. 10.3389/FBIOE.2021.740722/FULL

  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 262

  ZinnielD. K.LambrechtP.HarrisN. B.FengZ.KuczmarskiD.HigleyP.et al (2002). Isolation and characterization of endophytic colonizing bacteria from agronomic crops and prairie plants.Appl. Environ. Microbiol.682198–2208. doi: 10.1128/AEM.68.5.2198-2208.2002

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar

• 263

  ZúñigaA.PoupinM. J.DonosoR.LedgerT.GuilianiN.GutiérrezR. A.et al (2013). Quorum sensing and indole-3-acetic acid degradation play a role in colonization and plant growth promotion of Arabidopsis thaliana by Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN.Mol. Plant Microbe Interact.26546–553. 10.1094/MPMI-10-12-0241-R

  • Pubmed Abstract
  • CrossRef
  • Google Scholar