Beneficial Microbes for Disease Suppression and Plant Growth Promotion

Meena, Mukesh; Swapnil, Prashant; Zehra, Andleeb; Aamir, Mohd; Dubey, Manish Kumar; Goutam, Jyoti; Upadhyay, Ram Sanmukh

doi:10.1007/978-981-10-6593-4_16

Cited by 45 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 213 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Plants have an inbuilt capability to synthesize various secondary metabolites which act as main agents for plant defense actions against microorganisms, insects, and herbivores [7]. The use of various plant extracts and essential oils for growth inhibition has been reported by various authors [[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16]].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory effects of leaf extract of Lawsonia inermis on Curvularia lunata and characterization of novel inhibitory compounds by GC–MS analysis

Barupal

Meena

Sharma

2019

Biotechnology Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibitory effects of leaf extract of Lawsonia inermis on Curvularia lunata and characterization of novel inhibitory compounds by GC–MS analysis

Barupal

Meena

Sharma

2019

Biotechnology Reports

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Figure 2 shows the elicitation of induced systemic resistance (ISR) by microorganisms and their counterparts through various mechanisms. Sometimes, these mechanisms fail when a virulent pathogen attacks the plant and tries to evade the resistive reactions of the plant [13,14]. Pathogenic and nonpathogenic microbes trigger different types of defense response [15][16][17].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

PGPR‐mediated induction of systemic resistance and physiochemical alterations in plants against the pathogens: Current perspectives

et al. 2020

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Plant growth‐promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) are diverse groups of plant‐associated microorganisms, which can reduce the severity or incidence of disease during antagonism among bacteria and soil‐borne pathogens, as well as by influencing a systemic resistance to elicit defense response in host plants. An amalgamation of various strains of PGPR has improved the efficacy by enhancing the systemic resistance opposed to various pathogens affecting the crop. Many PGPR used with seed treatment causes structural improvement of the cell wall and physiological/biochemical changes leading to the synthesis of proteins, peptides, and chemicals occupied in plant defense mechanisms. The major determinants of PGPR‐mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) are lipopolysaccharides, lipopeptides, siderophores, pyocyanin, antibiotics 2,4‐diacetylphoroglucinol, the volatile 2,3‐butanediol, N‐alkylated benzylamine, and iron‐regulated compounds. Many PGPR inoculants have been commercialized and these inoculants consequently aid in the improvement of crop growth yield and provide effective reinforcement to the crop from disease, whereas other inoculants are used as biofertilizers for native as well as crops growing at diverse extreme habitat and exhibit multifunctional plant growth‐promoting attributes. A number of applications of PGPR formulation are needed to maintain the resistance levels in crop plants. Several microarray‐based studies have been done to identify the genes, which are associated with PGPR‐induced systemic resistance. Identification of these genes associated with ISR‐mediating disease suppression and biochemical changes in the crop plant is one of the essential steps in understanding the disease resistance mechanisms in crops. Therefore, in this review, we discuss the PGPR‐mediated innovative methods, focusing on the mode of action of compounds authorized that may be significant in the development contributing to enhance plant growth, disease resistance, and serve as an efficient bioinoculants for sustainable agriculture. The review also highlights current research progress in this field with a special emphasis on challenges, limitations, and their environmental and economic advantages.

show abstract

“…Different studies have reported both the positive and negative effects of the NPs on the plants (Yang et al, 2017;Goswami et al, 2019;Kumar et al, 2019). Zinc oxide NPs showed a positive effect on soybean by increasing its root length whereas negative effects (shrunken root tip and broken root caps) were found in ryegrass (Lin and Xing, 2007;López-Moreno et al, 2010;Meena et al, 2017e;Meena et al, 2017f). Similarly, Cañas et al (2008) also reported both positive and negative impacts of singlewalled carbon nanotubes (SWCNTs) in root length of onion and cucumber, respectively.…”

Section: Interaction Of Nanoparticles With Plantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Endophytic Nanotechnology: An Approach to Study Scope and Potential Applications

et al. 2021

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Nanotechnology has become a very advanced and popular form of technology with huge potentials. Nanotechnology has been very well explored in the fields of electronics, automobiles, construction, medicine, and cosmetics, but the exploration of nanotecnology’s use in agriculture is still limited. Due to climate change, each year around 40% of crops face abiotic and biotic stress; with the global demand for food increasing, nanotechnology is seen as the best method to mitigate challenges in disease management in crops by reducing the use of chemical inputs such as herbicides, pesticides, and fungicides. The use of these toxic chemicals is potentially harmful to humans and the environment. Therefore, using NPs as fungicides/ bactericides or as nanofertilizers, due to their small size and high surface area with high reactivity, reduces the problems in plant disease management. There are several methods that have been used to synthesize NPs, such as physical and chemical methods. Specially, we need ecofriendly and nontoxic methods for the synthesis of NPs. Some biological organisms like plants, algae, yeast, bacteria, actinomycetes, and fungi have emerged as superlative candidates for the biological synthesis of NPs (also considered as green synthesis). Among these biological methods, endophytic microorganisms have been widely used to synthesize NPs with low metallic ions, which opens a new possibility on the edge of biological nanotechnology. In this review, we will have discussed the different methods of synthesis of NPs, such as top-down, bottom-up, and green synthesis (specially including endophytic microorganisms) methods, their mechanisms, different forms of NPs, such as magnesium oxide nanoparticles (MgO-NPs), copper nanoparticles (Cu-NPs), chitosan nanoparticles (CS-NPs), β-d-glucan nanoparticles (GNPs), and engineered nanoparticles (quantum dots, metalloids, nonmetals, carbon nanomaterials, dendrimers, and liposomes), and their molecular approaches in various aspects. At the molecular level, nanoparticles, such as mesoporous silica nanoparticles (MSN) and RNA-interference molecules, can also be used as molecular tools to carry genetic material during genetic engineering of plants. In plant disease management, NPs can be used as biosensors to diagnose the disease.

show abstract

Beneficial Microbes for Disease Suppression and Plant Growth Promotion

Cited by 45 publications

References 213 publications

Inhibitory effects of leaf extract of Lawsonia inermis on Curvularia lunata and characterization of novel inhibitory compounds by GC–MS analysis

Inhibitory effects of leaf extract of Lawsonia inermis on Curvularia lunata and characterization of novel inhibitory compounds by GC–MS analysis

PGPR‐mediated induction of systemic resistance and physiochemical alterations in plants against the pathogens: Current perspectives

Endophytic Nanotechnology: An Approach to Study Scope and Potential Applications

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About