Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
SOIL & CROP SCIENCES | REVIEW ARTICLE
Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review
Dweipayan Goswami1*, Janki N. Thakker2 and Pinakin C. Dhandhukia3
Received: 24 October 2015
Accepted: 30 November 2015
Published: 19 January 2016
*Corresponding author: Dweipayan
Goswami, Department of Biochemistry
and Biotechnology, St. Xavier’s College,
Ahmedabad 380009, Gujarat, India
E-mail: [email protected]
Reviewing editor:
Manuel Tejada Moral, University of
Seville, Spain
Additional information is available at
the end of the article
Abstract: Population growth and increase in food requirement is the global problem.
It is inevitable to introduce new practices that help to increase agricultural productivity. Use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) has shown potentials
to be a promising technique in the practice of sustainable agriculture. A group of
natural soil microbial flora acquire dwelling in the rhizosphere and on the surface of
the plant roots which impose beneficial effect on the overall well-being of the plant
are categorized as PGPR. Researchers are actively involved in understanding plant
growth promoting mechanics employed by PGPR. Broadly, these are divided into
direct and indirect mechanics. Any mechanism that directly enhances plant growth
either by providing nutrients or by producing growth regulators are portrayed as
direct mechanics. Whereas, any mechanisms that protects plant from acquiring infections (biotic stress) or helps plant to grow healthily under environmental stresses
(abiotic stress) are considered indirect mechanics. This review is focused to describe
cogent mechanics employed by PGPR that assists plant to sustain healthy growth.
Also, we emphasized on the PGPR-based products which have been commercially
developed exploiting these mechanics of PGPR.
Subjects: Agronomy; Environment & Agriculture; Food Science & Technology; Plant &
Animal Ecology; Soil Sciences
Keywords: plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR); indole acetic acid (IAA); phosphate solubilization; siderophore production; antibiotic production; induced systematic
resistance (ISR); ACC deaminase
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
PUBLIC INTEREST STATEMENT
Dweipayan Goswami is an assistant professor
at the Department of Biochemistry and
Biotechnology, St. Xavier’s College (Autonomous),
Ahmedabad. He completed his PhD research
from PDPIAS, CHARUSAT. He completed MSc
(Biotechnology) in 2011 from Gujarat University
and BSc (Biochemistry with vocational
Biotechnology) in 2009 from St. Xavier’s College,
Ahmedabad. His research interests’ lies in
understanding the role of rhizobacteria in growth
promotion of plants and developing bacterial
biocontrol agents to combat fungal infections
caused in plants.
New and improved eco friendly techniques has to
be introduced in the agriculture practices owing
to the constant increase in the food demand due
to growing global population. Use of chemical
fertilizers do give good agricultural productivity
but it slowly deteriorates agriculture land. Use
of biofertilizers is an eco friendly substitution to
the use of chemical fertilizers. Biofertilizers are
composed of bacterial species which are beneficial
to the plant growth and such microbes are termed
as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR).
Researchers are studying these microbes for
the past 30 years to understand the mechanics
employed by PGPR to support plant growth. Over
the period of time, some of the mechanics of PGPR
are well understood which we like to portray in this
review.
© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution
(CC-BY) 4.0 license.
Page 1 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
1. Introduction
Worldwide growth in population, increase in the demand of global food production, and environmental damage causing problems in agriculture yield are major concerns to the world. These problems may soon cause insufficiency to feed all of the world’s population (Ladeiro, 2012). Current
population of world is 7 billion and expected to reach 10 billion by next 50 years. Agricultural strategies to feed all of these individuals are an important challenge in twenty-first century (Glick, 2014).
For the same it is essential that agricultural productivity should be significantly increased within the
next few decades.
Adding up in to the above mentioned constrains, there is loss in the productivity of agricultural
production due to environmental abiotic and biotic stresses posed on the crops growing in the field.
Abiotic stresses such as soil salinization, soil sodification, drought, soil pH, and environmental temperature are major limiting factors in crop production. Soil salinization and soil sodification are one
of the most widespread soil degradation processes on the earth endangering the potential use of
soils (Ladeiro, 2012; Rengasamy, 2006). Soil salinization affects an estimated 1–3 million hectares in
Europe, mainly in the Mediterranean countries. Drought is another influencing factor aiding soil degradation and soil desertification. The Global Assessment of Soil Degradation (GLASOD) estimated
that about 13% (or 850 million ha) of the land in Asia and the Pacific is degraded due to soil salinization, soil sodification, and drought (Ladeiro, 2012). Outside Asia, 104 million ha were estimated to be
degraded in the Pacific subregion where large-scale clearance of forest land has caused a decline in
soil structure and fertility. Another abiotic factor, water erosion is a severe threat to soil degradation
that occurs in the Himalayas, Central Asia, China, the South Pacific, and Australia, while the GLASOD
study indicated that in the South Asian subregion Afghanistan, India, Iran, and Pakistan are the
worst affected by wind erosion (Ladeiro, 2012).
On the other hand, biotic stress that causes reduction in agricultural yield is due to the diseases
caused in field crops by other living organisms, such as bacteria, viruses, fungi, and parasites. Out of
all these, two-third of total diseased plants are infected by fungi. These diseases decrease the annual agriculture yield by at least 30% globally (Fisher et al., 2012). Thus, abiotic factors and stress
have always played major role in reducing agriculture yield. Any technology that is hypothesized
overcome such constrains in food production is inevitable. The only visible solutions that can produce more agricultural yield are: (1) Better Agricultural land management; (2) Greater use of chemicals including fertilizers; (3) Safe and efficient Pesticides and herbicides; (4) More farm mechanization;
(5) Greater use of transgenic crops; and (6) Expanded use of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
(PGPR) (Glick, 2014).
Several of the above-mentioned solutions to enhance agricultural yield will only be effective in the
short term as the world we live is finite with limited resources, so any effective and longer term solutions to provide food for the world must include sustainable and eco friendly biological solutions. To
this end, the persistent use of PGPR in agriculture is a striking technology hypothesized to overcome
this constrain. In context to this problem, Glick (2014) quoted “Scientists have dramatically increased our knowledge of the mechanisms employed by PGPR in the past 15–20 years, additional
understanding of the fundamental mechanisms employed by these bacteria will likely hasten the
acceptance of these organisms as suitable and effective adjuncts to agricultural practice.” Thus, to
isolate and characterize PGPR aiming to understand fundamental mechanics for enhancing any sort
of plant growth under stress condition should be the primary agenda of the research.
2. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
Microbial populations are found to be present in diverse ecological niches, including extreme environments present in both lithosphere and hydrosphere, where their metabolic abilities play a critical
role in geochemical nutrient cycling (Aeron, Kumar, Pandey, & Maheshwari, 2011; Daniel, 2005; Jha,
Aeron, Patel, Maheshwari, & Saraf, 2011). Soil bacterial population, in particular, have the ability to
grow rapidly and utilize a very wide range of different substances as nutrient sources. Bacterial flora
are dispersed within the soil, often attached to soil particles, many interact with the roots of plants.
Page 2 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
Rhizosphere is one such well-characterized ecological niche comprising volume of soil surrounding
plant roots with highest bacterial population that are influenced by root exudates as defined by
Hiltner (1904). It is quiet common that the bacterial population in the rhizosphere are 100–1,000
times higher than in bulk soil. This is because such bacteria possess metabolic versatility to adapt
and utilize root exudates efficiently. Also, 15% of the root surface is covered by microbial populations belonging to several bacterial species (Govindasamy et al., 2011; Jha, Patel, Rajendran, & Saraf,
2010). Plant photosynthetic product (about 5 to 30%) is secreted by roots in form of different sugars
which in turn is utilized by microbial populations (Glick, 2014). Subsequent metabolic activities of
these bacteria in the rhizosphere kindle mineral nutrient transport and uptake by plant roots (Glick,
1995). Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) include bacteria that reside in the rhizosphere
and improve plant health ultimately aiding to augment plant growth. Majority of credible group of
PGPR belongs to genera Acinetobacter, Agrobacterium, Arthobacter, Azotobacter, Azospirillum,
Burkholderia, Bradyrhizobium, Rhizobium, Frankia, Serratia, Thiobacillus, Pseudomonads, and Bacillus
(Glick, 1995; Vessey, 2003). In the last 10 years, the role of the rhizosphere as an ecological niche in
the functioning of the biosphere has allowed PGPR to gain importance which eventually aided research to understand the mechanics of PGPR in the rhizosphere. A putative rhizobacteria qualifies as
PGPR when it is able to produce a positive effect on the plant upon inoculation, hence demonstrating
good competitive skills over the existing rhizosphere communities. Generally, about 2–5% of rhizosphere bacteria are PGPR (Antoun & Prévost, 2006; Jha et al., 2010; Sgroy et al., 2009; Siddikee,
Chauhan, Anandham, Han, & Sa, 2010). PGPRs are the potential tools for sustainable agriculture and
trend for the future. One of the mechanisms by which bacteria are adsorbed onto soil particles is by
ion exchange. A soil is said to be naturally fertile when the soil organisms are releasing inorganic
nutrients from the organic reserves at a rate sufficient to sustain rapid plant growth.
Looking backwards in detail, the importance of rhizobacteria for the plant health was showed by
Kloepper and Schroth (1978) during Fourth International Congress of Bacterial Plant Pathogens, conducted in France. However, the term PGPR was coined by the same author in 1980 (Good et al.,
1994). Currently, the number of works per year on this topic has increased, creating a new discipline
that has changed the basic traditional concepts of plant physiology and microbial ecology. Later,
Bashan and Holguin (1998) proposed a revision of the original definition of the term PGPR, since
there are a number of bacteria that have a beneficial effect on the plant even though they are outside the rhizosphere environment. The augmentative effect of PGPR occurs through various mechanisms. The role of PGPR is not solely implemented by the direct effect of a single bacterial strain but
by the molecular dialogue established among soil micro-organisms and plant. With this knowledge,
let us see in detail the mechanics employed by PGPR for plant growth promotion.
3. Direct and indirect mechanics of PGPR
A thorough understanding of the plant growth-promoting (PGP) mechanics is inevitable to manipulate the rhizosphic flora in order to maximize the processes that strongly enrich plant productivity.
PGP mechanisms have been grouped traditionally into direct and indirect mechanisms. The difference between the two is not always evident, indirect mechanisms, as a general rule, are those that
happen outside the plant, while direct mechanisms are those that occur inside the plant and directly
affect the plant’s metabolism (Antoun & Prévost, 2006; Glick, 1995; Siddikee et al., 2010; Vessey,
2003). Accordingly, direct mechanisms include those that affect the balance of plant growth regulators, either because the micro-organisms themselves release growth regulators that are integrated
into the plant or because the micro-organisms act as a sink of plant-released hormones, and those
that induce the plant’s metabolism leading to an improvement in its adaptive capacity (Glick, 2014;
Govindasamy et al., 2011). Whereas, indirect mechanism require the participation of the plants defensive metabolic processes, which respond to the signal sent from the bacteria influencing the
plant. Two important mechanisms are included in this group: induction of systemic resistance to
plant pathogens (biotic stress) and protection against unhealthy environment conditions (abiotic
stress) (Aeron et al., 2011; Glick, 2014; Jha et al., 2011; Ramos-Solano, Barriuso, & Gutiérrez-Mañero,
2008).
Page 3 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
3.1. Direct mechanics of PGPR
3.1.1. Biological nitrogen fixation
Bacterial strains possessing the trait of nitrogen fixation are classified in to two categories. First
category includes root/legume-associated symbiotic bacteria which possess the specificity and infect the roots to produce nodule e.g. strains of Rhizobium. Other group of bacteria are the so-called
free-living nitrogen fixers which do not possess specificity to plant (Oberson et al., 2013). Examples
of such free-living nitrogen fixers include Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Burkholderia, Herbaspirillum,
Bacillus, and Paenibacillus (Goswami, Parmar, Vaghela, Dhandhukia, & Thakker, 2015; Heulin,
Achouak, Berge, Normand, & Guinebretière, 2002; Seldin, Van Elsas, & Penido, 1984; von der Weid,
Duarte, van Elsas, & Seldin, 2002). Although free-living nitrogen fixers do not penetrate the plant’s
tissues, yet a very close relationship is established where these bacteria live sufficiently close to the
root such that the atmospheric nitrogen fixed by the bacteria that is not used for their own benefit,
but is taken up by the plant allowing better availability of nitrogen absorption. This relationship is
described as a non-specific and loose symbiosis. Stacey, Burris, and Evans (1992) report that the
amount of nitrogen fixed ranges between 20 and 30 kg per hectare per year. Species belonging to
Azotobacter and Azospirillum are the most widely used in agricultural trials. The first report appeared
in 1902 and it was widely used across the globe till date (Bhattacharyya & Jha, 2012). Several strains
of these genus have gained importance as along with nitrogen fixation they also enhance plant
growth by producing phytohormones including indole-3-acetic acid, gibberellic acid, and cytokinins.
Application of Azotobacter chroococcum and Azospirillum brasilense inoculants in agriculture, especially in cereals has resulted in notable increases in crop yields (Oberson et al., 2013).
Over the period of time, strains other than Azotobacter and Azospirillum that have gained importance due to nitrogen fixation ability are strains of Bacillus and Paenibacillus as they have been reported to possess nif gene cluster which is responsible to code nitrogenase enzyme, a key enzyme
required for fixing nitrogen. Bacillus azotofixans, Bacillus macerans, and Bacillus polymyxa, were
identified as nitrogen fixers, based on nitrogenase activity (Seldin et al., 1984) however, after reclassification, these organisms are now classified in Paenibacillus genus. Paenibacillus odorifer,
Paenibacillus graminis, Paenibacillus peoriae, and Paenibacillus brasilensis have been described as
nitrogen fixers (Heulin et al., 2002; von der Weid et al., 2002). Other Paenibacillus species viz. P.
azotofixans, P. macerans, P. polymyxa, P. graminis, and P. odorifer were identified to possess the presence of nif gene cluster (Heulin et al., 2002). Ding, Wang, Liu, and Chen (2005) isolated and identified
nitrogen-fixing strains from plant rhizospheres in Beijing region, reporting the presence of nif genes
in both genera Bacillus and Paenibacillus. Several reports suggesting the presence of nitrogen-fixing
ability by P. polymyxa are available (Govindasamy, Senthilkumar, & Upendra-Kumar, 2008).
Guemouri-Athmani et al. (2000) measured the nitrogenase activity of several strains of P. polymyxa
recovered from Algerian soil using acetylene reduction assay which showed only 14 of the 23 strains
tested were able to reduce acetylene. P. azotofixans (ATCC 35681T) is most efficient nitrogen-fixing
bacterium studied so far among the genus Paenibacilus and Bacillus (Govindasamy et al., 2008;
Seldin et al., 1984). Hence, nitrogen fixation is considered as an important trait of PGPRs as it directly
provides nitrogen to the plant. Nitrogen-fixing strains are marketed as biofertilizers for 20 years and
they are considered important for agriculture (Goswami et al., 2015; Heulin et al., 2002).
3.1.2. Phosphate solubilization
After nitrogen, phosphorous is the most limiting nutrient for plants. Despite profound abundant reserves of phosphorous, it is not available in form suitable for plant uptake. Plants are only able to
absorb mono- and dibasic phosphate which are the soluble forms of phosphate (Jha, Patel, & Saraf,
2012; Jha & Saraf, 2015). Micro-organisms mineralize organic phosphorus in soil by solubilizing complex-structured phosphates viz. tricalcium phosphate, rock phosphate, aluminum phosphate, etc.
which turns organic phosphorous to inorganic form ultimately aiding the phosphate availability to
plants. These phosphate-solubilizing bacteria use different mechanism(s) to solubilize the insoluble
forms of the phosphate. The primary mechanism of phosphate solubilization is based on organic
acid secretion by microbes because of sugar metabolism. Organisms residing in the rhizosphere
Page 4 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
utilize sugars from root exudates; metabolize it to produce organic acids (Goswami, Dhandhukia,
Patel, & Thakker, 2014; Goswami, Pithwa, Dhandhukia, & Thakker, 2014). These acids released by the
micro-organisms act as good chelators of divalent Ca2+ cations accompanying the release of phosphates from insoluble phosphatic compounds. Many of the phosphate-solubilizing microbes lower
the pH of the medium by secretion of organic acids such as acetic, lactic, malic, succinic, tartaric,
gluconic, 2-ketogluconic, oxalic and citric acids (Patel, Goswami, Dhandhukia, & Thakker, 2015;
Rodrı́guez & Fraga, 1999) and their detection using high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC)
is also reported (Buch, Archana, & Naresh-Kumar, 2008). The involvement of micro-organisms in the
solubilization of inorganic phosphates was known since 1903 (Kucey, Janzen, & Leggett, 1989).
It is estimated that phosphate-solubilizing micro-organisms constitute 20–40% of the culturable
population of soil micro-organisms of which significant proportion of these bacteria can be isolated
from rhizosphere soil (Chabot, Antoun, & Cescas, 1993). Most phosphate solubilizers isolated from
the rhizosphere of various plants are known to be metabolically more active than those isolated
from sources other than rhizosphere. Phosphate tends to react with calcium (Ca), iron (Fe), or aluminum (Al) leading to its precipitation making it unavailable for plant uptake. Inorganic phosphate
in acidic soils is associated with Al and Fe compounds, whereas calcium phosphates are found in
calcareous soils in the form of inorganic phosphates. Organic phosphate makes up a large fraction
of soluble phosphate which is about 50% in soils with high organic matter (Barber, 1995).
Hexaphosphate salt of inositol, so-called phytate, is the major form of phosphate in organic form
which constitute up to 80% of the total organic phosphate (Alexander, 1977). Although micro-organisms are known to produce phytases that can hydrolyze phytate, however phytate tends to form
insoluble complexes with Fe, Al, and Ca and accumulates in soils (Alexander, 1977; Jha et al., 2012).
Among the soil bacterial communities, ectorhizospheric (residing on roots and in rhizospheric soil)
strains from Pseudomonas and Bacilli, and endosymbiotic (residing within the roots/nodules) rhizobia have been described as effective phosphate solubilizers (Goswami, Patel, et al., 2014). Bacillus
megaterium, B. circulans, B. coagulans, B. subtilis, P. polymyxa, B. sircalmous, and Pseudomonas striata could be referred as the most important strains (Govindasamy et al., 2011; Goswami, Vaghela,
Parmar, Dhandhukia, & Thakker, 2013; Kucey et al., 1989). Pseudomonas fluorescens, Erwinia herbicola, Pseudomonas cepacia, and Burkholderia cepacia are reported as efficient producers of gluconic
acid which is the most frequent efficient agent in mineral phosphate solubilization (Rodrı́guez &
Fraga, 1999). Rhizobium leguminosarum is reported to produce 2-ketogluconic acid which aids in the
solubilization of phosphate. Rhizobium meliloti and Bacillus firmus produce 2-ketogluconic acid
(Banik & Dey, 1982; Halder & Chakrabartty, 1993; Halder, Mishra, Bhattacharyya, & Chakrabartty,
1990). Mixtures of lactic, isovaleric, isobutyric, and acetic acids are frequently produced by the
strains of Bacillus licheniformis and B. amyloliquefaciens. Other organic acids, such as glycolic acid,
oxalic acid, malonic acid, succinic acid, citric acid, and propionic acid, have also been identified
among phosphate solubilizers (Banik & Dey, 1982; Chen et al., 2006; Illmer & Schinner, 1992; Jha &
Saraf, 2015). Figure 1 shows the schematic summary of phosphate solubilization mechanism employed by PGPR.
3.1.3. Phytohormone production
Classes of well-known phytohormones include auxins, gibberellins, cytokinins, ethylene, and abcisic
acid and soil micro-organisms, particularly the rhizosphere bacteria, do possess the potential to
produce these hormones (Arshad & Frankenberger, 1998; Patten & Glick, 1996). Plant responds to
any phytohormone in the rhizosphere that are supplemented externally or been produced by microbial flora residing in the rhizosphere. These phytohormones can mediate processes including plant
cell enlargement, division, and extension in symbiotic as well as non-symbiotic roots (Glick, 2014;
Patten & Glick, 1996).
3.1.3.1. Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA)—an auxin produced by several PGPR: Phytohormones, especially
auxins control several stages of plant growth and development such as cell elongation, cell division,
tissue differentiation, and aid apical dominance. The microbial biosynthesis and the fundamental
Page 5 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
Figure 1. Schematic
representation of solubilization
of soil phosphorus by PGPR.
mechanism of auxins action on plant have undergone intense investigation. Auxin, indole-3-acetic
acid (IAA), is an important phytohormone produced by several strains of PGPR and it is well-known
that treatment of IAA-producing rhizobacteria increases the plant growth (Amara, Khalid, & Hayat,
2015; Kaymak, 2011; Vessey, 2003). Primarily, IAA is known to stimulate both rapid (e.g. increase in
cell elongation) and long-term (e.g. cell division and differentiation) responses in plants. Plant under
the long-term treatment of IAA has highly developed roots, which in turn allows the plant to uptake
better nutrients ultimately aiding overall growth of the plant (Aeron et al., 2011). About 80% of the
bacterial flora in the rhizosphere produce IAA; so applying such micro-organisms in the field enhance the endogenous IAA levels of plant and therefore, it has remarkable effect on plant growth.
Auxins are known to effect whole plant but as PGPRs produce IAA in the rhizosphere, plant roots are
relatively more effected by these IAA produced by PGPR and so plant roots are principally affected
(Salisbury, 1994). IAA released by rhizobacteria mainly affect the root system by increasing its size
and weight, branching number, and the surface area in contact with soil. All these changes lead to
an increase in its ability to probe the soil for nutrient exchange, therefore improving plant’s nutrition
pool and growth capacity (Gutierrez-Manero et al., 2001; Ramos-Solano et al., 2008). IAA also drives
the differentiation of adventitious roots from stem as auxins induce stem tissues to redifferentiate
as root tissue. Etesami, Alikhani, and Hosseini (2015) reported that the PGPRs residing in rhizosphere,
rhizoplane, and endophytic niches can produce IAA and support plant growth.
Different PGPRs possess different routes for the synthesis of IAA. IAA is synthesized by plant-associated microbes via L-tryptophan-dependent and independent pathways, and three L-tryptophandependent pathways are known. Most of these PGPRs utilize L-tryptophan which is secreted in root
exudates as a precursor for IAA production. Very few examples of IAA produced by L-tyrptophan
independent pathway are known, one of the most studied organism which produces IAA by this
route is Azospirillum brasilense, where more than 90% of IAA produced is by L-tryptophan independent pathway and remaining 10% IAA is produced by utilizing L-tryptophan. However, the exact pathway and enzymes used for IAA synthesis by this route is still not known (Jha & Saraf, 2015; Spaepen,
Vanderleyden, & Remans, 2007).
Three L-tryptophan-dependent routes for the production from L-tryptophan is described in Figure
2. Briefly, bacteria such as Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, and Azospirillum synthesize IAA via the
Indole-3-pyruvic acid (IPyA) pathway (Burdman, Jurkevitch, Okon, Subba-Rao, & Dommergues,
Page 6 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
2000; Costacurta & Vanderleyden, 1995; Manulis, Valinski, Gafni, & Hershenhorn, 1991; Patten &
Glick, 1996). On the other hand, some pathogenic bacteria such as Agrobacterium tumefaciens,
Pseudomonas syringae, Pantoea agglomerans, Rhizobium, Bradyrhizobium, and Erwinia herbicola
synthesize IAA predominantly via. Indole-3-acetamide (IAM) pathway (Dobbelaere, Vanderleyden,
& Okon, 2003), whereas, Bacillus subtilis, B. licheniformis, B. megaterium, etc. produce IAA via.
tryptamine pathway.
3.1.3.2. Cytokinins: Cytokinins represent another class of phytohormones produced by micro-organisms (Persello-Cartieaux, Nussaume, & Robaglia, 2003). Frankenberger and Arshad (1995) elaborate
the role of auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, ethylene and absicisic acids which, when applied to plants,
help in increasing plant yield and growth. Similar to IAA, plant responses to exogenous applications
of cytokinin result in enhanced cell division, enhanced root development, enhanced root hair formation, inhibition of root elongation, shoot initiation, or certain other physiological responses (Amara
et al., 2015; Frankenberger & Arshad, 1995; Jha & Saraf, 2015). Cytokinins are N6-substituted aminopurines which, when applied to plants, influence their physiological and developmental processes
(Maheshwari, Dheeman, & Agarwal, 2015; Salisbury & Ross, 1992). Other processes such as developmental processes such as the formation of embryo vasculature, nutritional signaling, leaf expansion,
branching, chlorophyll production, root growth, promotion of seed germination, and delay of senescence are also heavily influenced by cytokinins (Wong, Tan, Ge, Chen, & Yong, 2015).
Cytokinin production in several plant-associated microbes has been well characterized (Kado,
1984; Kaiss-Chapman & Morris, 1977). These micro-organisms, which belong to diverse genera such
as Pseudomonas, Azospirillum, and Bacillus have been isolated from a wide range of plant species,
such as barley, canola, bean, and Arabidopsis (Alexandre, Jacoud, Faure, & Bally, 1996; PerselloCartieaux et al., 2001). Ortíz-Castro, Valencia-Cantero, and López-Bucio (2008) reported the identification of a Bacillus megaterium strain that promoted the growth of A. thaliana and P. vulgaris
seedlings through cytokinins production. Other different bacterial genera Proteus, Klebsiella,
Figure 2. Tryptophandependent auxin biosynthetic
pathways in micro-organisms.
Page 7 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
Escherichia, Pseudomonas, and Xanthomonas have also been reported to possess the ability to produce cytokinins (Maheshwari et al., 2015).
Most abundant cytokinins are adenine-type, where the N6 position of adenine is substituted with
an isoprenoid, such as in zeatin, or an aromatic side chain, such as in kinetin. Zeatin can be synthesized in two different pathways: the tRNA pathway and the adenosine monophosphate (AMP) pathway (Figure 3). In the tRNA pathway zeatin is a recycled product of isopentenylated tRNAs. In the
AMP pathway, zeatin is synthesized from an isopentenyl donor, dimethylallyldiphosphate (DMAPP),
and AMP, adenosine diphosphate (ADP), or adenosine triphosphate (ATP) by isopentenyl transferases. After synthesis cytokinins can be glucosylated. In brief, for biosynthesis of cytokinins, two pathways have been proposed: direct pathway, involving development of DMAPP and
N6-isopentenyladenosine monophosphate (i6 AMP) from AMP, followed by formation zeatin-type
compounds from hydroxylation of the side chain; and indirect pathway, in which cytokinins are released by turnover of tRNA containing cis-zeatin (Amara et al., 2015). Zeatin, a type of cytokinin, is
widely produced by PGPR and their pathways of biosynthesis are vividly shown in Figure 3.
Researchers back in early 1970s have proved the production of cytokinins by microbes. Phillips and
Torrey (1972) reported cytokinin-like substances in the culture filtrates of Rhizobium leguminosarum
Figure 3. Zeatin Biosynthesis
pathway studied in
Paenibacillus polymyxa OSY-DF.
Notes: The whole genome
sequence of Paenibacillus
polymixa OSY-DF is deposited
in GenBanK and its accession
number provided is NZ_
AIPP01000139.1. Pathway
KEGG map as described
by PATRIC (Pathosystems
Resource Integration center)
is shown http://patricbrc.org/
portal/portal/patric/CompPat
hwayMap?cType=genome&cI
d=233737&dm=feature&feat
ure_info_id=85387831&map
=00908&algorithm=PATRIC&
ec_number=.
Page 8 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
and Bradyrhizobium japonicum 61A68, which was later identified as zeatin. Upadhyaya, Letham,
Parker, Hocart, and Dart (1991) recorded the production of isopentenyladenine (IPA) and zeatin (Z)
in substantial amounts by two Rhizobium strains ANU 240 and IC 3342. García de Salamone, Hynes,
and Nelson (2001) reported the growth-promoting effect of Pseudomonas G20-18 on wheat and
radish plants by production of cytokinin. Later, Karnwal and Kaushik (2011) reported the production
of IPA, dihydroxyzeatin riboside (DHZR), and zeatin riboside (ZR) by Pseudomonas fluorescens AK1
and Pseudomonas aeruginosa AK2 and showed growth promotion in rice seedling. Over the course
of time, more than 30 different growth-promoting cytokinins compounds have been found in plants,
plant-associated micro-organisms, and in in vitro conditions most of the micro-organisms are capable of releasing cytokinins with different proportions (Amara et al., 2015; Maheshwari et al., 2015).
3.1.3.3. Gibberellins: Gibberellins (GAs) are a large group of phytohormones which constitute as
many as 136 different structured molecules. It is a group of phytohormones that influence many
developmental processes in higher plants, including seed germination, stem elongation, flowering,
and fruit setting (Hedden & Phillips, 2000). To date, 136 GAs from 128 plant species are known, 28
GAs from 7 fungal species, and only 4 GAs (GA1, GA3, GA4, and GA20) from 7 bacterial species have
been identified (MacMillan, 2001). Plant growth promotion by PGPR species that produce GAs has
been reported (Atzorn, Crozier, Wheeler, & Sandberg, 1988; Bastián et al., 1998; Gutierrez-Manero et
al., 2001). The production of gibberellins by bacillus strains is rare, with only two strains being documented that are capable to produce gibberellins are B. pumilus and B. licheniformis (GutierrezManero et al., 2001). The common structure of these class of growth regulators, is a skeleton of
19–20 carbon atoms. The reason for the pronounced effect of gibberellins is that these hormones
can be translocated from the roots to the aerial parts of the plant. The effects in the aerial part are
notable and more so when the bacteria also produce auxins that stimulate the root system by enhancing the nutrient supply to facilitate growth in the aerial part (Wong et al., 2015).
The first report of gibberellin characterization in bacteria using physicochemical methods was by
Atzorn et al. (1988), who demonstrated the presence of GA1, GA4, GA9, and GA20 in gnotobiotic cultures of Rhizobium meliloti. Apart from Azospirillum sp. and Rhizobium sp. production of gibberellinlike substances has also been claimed in numerous bacterial genera, although the techniques used
(TLC, bioassays, and HPLC-UV) are of poor resolution and lack reliability. Using explicit physicochemical methods, such as Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectroscopy (GC-MS), production of gibberellins
was confirmed in Acetobacter diazotrophicus, Herbaspirillum seropedicae (Bastián et al., 1998), and
Bacillus sp. (Gutierrez-Manero et al., 2001) in addition to Azospirillum sp. Over the course of time,
detection and quantification of gibberellins is possible using spectroscopy, high-performance thin
layer chromatography, HPLC, etc. The extraction and detection procedures for quantifying gibberellins from microbes are described by Patel et al. (2015).
In fungi, the general pathway is similar to that of higher plants, although the genes and enzymes
involved differ. Effect of PGPR producing GAs on plant is not exactly known but such bacteria are
used in the seed germination. Whereas, several reports suggests that GAs producing fungi are considered as phytopatogens (Malonek et al., 2005). Discovery of this group of plant hormones is linked
to the study of pathogen fungus Gibberella fujikuroi, and several published report suggest that pathogenic fungi produce GAs (Kudoyarova, Arkhipova, & Melent’ev, 2015).
3.2. Indirect mechanics of PGPR
3.2.1. Siderophore production
Iron is an essential nutrient for plants. It acts as a cofactor in a number of enzymes essential to
important physiological processes such as respiration, photosynthesis, and nitrogen fixation so its
deficiency is exhibited in severe metabolic modifications. Iron is quite abundant in soils but is frequently unavailable for plants or soil micro-organisms. Predominant chemical specie, Fe+3 is the oxidized form that reacts to form insoluble oxides and hydroxides inaccessible to plants and
micro-organisms. Plants have developed two strategies for efficient iron absorption. The first
Page 9 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
consists of releasing organic compounds capable of chelating iron, thus rendering it soluble where it
diffuses toward the plant, gets reduced, and absorbed by means of an enzymatic system present in
the cell membrane of the plant. The second strategy consists of absorbing the complex formed by
the organic compound and Fe+3, where the iron is reduced inside the plant and readily absorbed.
Some rhizosphere bacteria are able to release iron-chelating molecules to the rhizosphere and
hence serve to attract iron towards the rhizosphere where it can be absorbed by the plant (Payne,
1994).
Siderophores are low-molecular weight compounds, usually below 1 kDa, which contain functional groups capable of binding iron in a reversible way. The most frequent functional groups are
hydroximates and catechols, in which the distances among the groups involved are optimal to bind
iron. Siderophore concentration in soil is approximately around 10−30 M. Siderophore-producing bacteria usually belong to the genus Pseudomonas, where the most studied organisms are Pseudomonas
fluorescens and Pseudomonas aeruginosa which release pyochelin and pyoverdine type of siderophores (Haas & Défago, 2005). Rhizosphere bacteria release these compounds to increase their competitive potential, since these substances have an antibiotic activity and improve iron nutrition for
the plant (Glick, 1995). Siderophore-producing rhizobacteria improve plant health at various levels:
they improve iron nutrition, inhibit the growth of other micro-organisms with the release of their
antibiotic molecule, and hinder the growth of pathogens by limiting the iron available for the pathogen, generally fungi, which are unable to absorb the iron–siderophore complex (Shen, Hu, Peng,
Wang, & Zhang, 2013).
3.2.2. Chitinase and glucanase production by PGPR
One of the major mechanisms used by biocontrol agents to control soil borne pathogens involves
the production of cell wall-degrading enzymes (Chet, Ordentlich, Shapira, & Oppenheim, 1990;
Kobayashi, Reedy, Bick, & Oudemans, 2002). Cell wall-degrading enzymes such as β-1,3-glucanase,
chitinase, cellulase, and protease secreted by biocontrol strains of PGPR exert a direct inhibitory effect on the hyphal growth of fungal pathogens by degrading their cell wall. Chitinase degrades chitin, an insoluble linear polymer of β-1, 4-N-acetyl-glucoseamine, which is the major component of
the fungal cell wall. The β-1,3-glucanase synthesized by strains of Paenibacillus and Streptomyces
spp. can easily degrade fungal cell walls of pathogenic F. oxysporum, is reported (Compant, Duffy,
Nowak, Clement, & Barka, 2005). In a similar manner, Bacillus cepacia synthesizes β-1,3-glucanase,
which destroys the cell walls of the soil borne pathogens R. solani, P. ultimum, and Sclerotium rolfsii
(Compant et al., 2005). Potential biocontrol agents with chitinolytic activities include B. licheniformis,
B. cereus, B. circulans, B. subtilis, and B. thuringiensis (Sadfi, Cherif, Fliss, Boudabbous, & Antoun,
2001). Among the Gram-negative bacteria, Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter agglomerans,
Pseudomonas aeruginosa, and P. fluorescens have been found to possess chitinolytic activities
(Neiendam-Nielsen & Sørensen, 1999).
Cell wall-degrading enzymes of rhizobacteria affect the structural integrity of the walls of the
target pathogen (Budi et al., 2000). Someya et al. (2000) studied the chitinolytic and antifungal activities of a potent biocontrol strain of Serratia marcescens B2 against the soil borne pathogens
Rhizoctonia solani and Fusarium oxysporum. The mycelia of the fungal pathogens co-inoculated with
this strain showed various abnormalities such as partial swelling in the hyphae and at the tip, hyphal
curling, or bursting of the hyphal tip. Examples of protection from phytopathogenic infection as a
result of the activity of cell wall-degrading enzymes include control of Sclerotium rolfsii and F. oxysporum on beans (Felse & Panda, 2000). Thus, the production of these enzymes by PGPR can categorize them as biocontrol agent against fungal pathogens.
3.2.3. Antibiotic production by PGPR
Utilization of microbial antagonists against plant pathogens in agricultural crops has been proposed
as an alternate to chemical pesticides. PGPRs belonging to Bacillus and Pseudomonas species play an
active role in the suppression of pathogenic micro-organisms producing antibiotics. These bacterial
Page 10 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
antagonists enforce suppression of plant pathogens by the secretion of extracellular metabolites
that are inhibitory even at low concentration.
Bacteria belonging to Bacillus genus produce a wide variety of antibacterial and antifungal antibiotics. Some of these compounds including subtilin, subtilosin A, TasA, and sublancin are well known
and are derived from ribosomal origin, but others, such as bacilysin, chlorotetain, mycobacillin,
rhizocticins, bacillaene, difficidin, and lipopeptides belonging to the surfactin, iturin, and fengycin
families, are formed by non-ribosomal peptide synthetases (NRPSs) and/or polyketide synthases
(PKS) (Leclere et al., 2005). The model organism B. subtilis 168 and the plant root-colonizing B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42 produce a wide variety of antibacterial and antifungal antibiotics, and their
gene clusters involved in antibiotics biosynthesis have been identified. In B. amyloliquefaciens FZB42
(Chang, Chen, & Jao, 2007), the nine gene clusters (srf, bmy, fen, nrs, dhb, bac, mln, bae, dfn) direct
the synthesis of bioactive peptides and polyketides by the enzymes NRPSs and PKS.
Antibiotics are also produced by strains of Pseudomonas where Pseudomonas fluorescens and
Pseudomonas aeruginosa are thoroughly studied. Antibiotics produced by these strains include 2,4
Diacetyl Phloroglucinol (DAPG), Phenazine-1-carboxylic acid (PCA), Phenazine-1-carboxamide (PCN),
Pyoluteorin (Plt), Pyrrolnitrin (Prn), OomycinA, Viscosinamide, Butyrolactones, Kanosamine,
Zwittermycin-A, Aerugine, Rhamnolipids, Cepaciamide A, Ecomycins, Pseudomonic acid, Azomycin,
antitumor antibiotics FR901463, Cepafungins and antibiotic Karalicin. These antibiotics are known to
possess antiviral, antimicrobial, insect and mammalian antifeedant, antihelminthic, phytotoxic, antioxidant, cytotoxic, antitumor, and PGP activities (Hammer, Hill, Lam, Van Pée, & Ligon, 1997).
Other than the mentioned PGPR traits, functions carried out by these organisms in the rhizosphere
are shown in Figure 4. Briefly, PGPR elude soil acidification by increasing the pH and producing capsular envelope to protect itself. PGPR alters root exudates either directly or indirectly through other
beneficial microbes like arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, thereby facilitating root colonization.
PGPR improve root colonization by undergoing phase variation. Toxins produced by roots and soilinhabiting pathogens can also be degraded by PGPR (Dutta & Podile, 2010).
3.2.4. Induced systematic resistance
PGPR provides alternate strategy to protect plant from diseases via induced systematic resistance
(ISR). The process where treatment of plant by PGPR elicits host defense as indicated by reduction in
severity or incidence of disease caused by pathogens that are spatially separated from the inducing
agent is termed as ISR by van Loon, Bakker, and Pieterse (1998). Mostly, non-specific character of
induced resistance constitutes an increase in the level of basal resistance to several pathogens simultaneously, which is of benefit under natural conditions where multiple pathogens remain
Figure 4. Interaction of plant
root exudates, pathogens,
PGPR, and other beneficial
microbes in the rhizosphere as
described by Dutta and Podile
(2010).
Page 11 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
present (Van Loon & Bakker, 2006; Thakker, Patel, & Dhandhukia, 2011; Thakker, Patel, & Kothari,
2007). PGPR such as Pseudomonas strains are known to induce systemic resistance in carnation, radish, and Arabidopsis, where the the “O antigenic side chain” of the bacterial outer membrane lipopolysaccharides acts as an inducing determinant, while pseudobactin siderophores produced by
strains Pseudomonas induce systemic resistance in tobacco and Arabidopsis. Another type of siderophore, pseudomanine produced by strains of Pseudomonas induces salicylic acid production in radish ultimately enhancing plant’s defense (Van Loon & Bakker, 2006). Thus, inducing rhizobacteria in
the plant roots produce signal, which spreads systemically within the plant and increases the defensive capacity of the distant tissues from the subsequent infection by the pathogens (Thakker, Patel,
& Dhandhukia, 2012).
3.2.5. PGPR modulates plant stress markers under abiotic stress
Plants are exposed to wide range of environmental stresses like high temperature, cold, drought,
salinity, alkalinity UV, and pathogen infection. Abiotic stress is the primary cause of crop loss worldwide by more than 30%. Among these stresses, salinity is considered one of the major abiotic stresses that limits crop yield due to reduction in photosynthesis, respiration, and protein synthesis
(Ahmad & Prasad, 2011). Salinity causes nutritional disorders in plants which lead to deficiencies of
several nutrients and drastically increasing Na+ levels (Zahedi, Fazeli, Zavareh, Dorry, & Gerayeli,
2012). The primary effect of salinity stress is hyperionic and hyperosmotic stress and in severe cases
causes oxidative stress in plants (Parvaiz, Khalid, Ashwani, Muhammad, & Nudrat, 2012). Oxidative
stress is responsible for the generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) which are deleterious to
plants (Azooz, Youssef, & Ahmad, 2011). ROS such as hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), superoxide ions
(O2−), singlet oxygen (1O2), and hydroxyl radical (OH−) etc. are toxic molecules for plant metabolism
(Parvaiz et al., 2012).
ROS are highly reactive and cause damage to biomolecules such as lipids, proteins, and nucleic
acids (Apel & Hirt, 2004). To minimize the effect of oxidative stress, plants have developed efficient
antioxidant system that can protect them from this disaster (Azooz et al., 2011; Parvaiz et al., 2012).
The ROS scavenging enzymes include peroxidase (POX), superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT),
ascorbate peroxidase (APX), and glutathione reductase (GR) (Apel & Hirt, 2004; Koyro, Ahmad, &
Geissler, 2012) and are present in different cellular compartments as isoenzymes especially in chloroplast and mitochondria (Apel & Hirt, 2004). ROS generation and increased activity of many antioxidant enzymes during salt stress have been reported widely (Rasool, Ahmad, Siddiqi, & Ahmad, 2013).
According to several researchers across the globe, there is a belief that the application of PGPR in
such plants affected by salinity modulates the levels of POX, SOD, CAT, APX, GR, etc. For an instance,
ChunJuan et al. (2012) reported that the application of a PGPR strain B. cereus AR156 on tomato
(Lycopersicon esculentum) under such abiotic stress showed enhanced activities of SOD, POX, and
CAT in the plant probably indicating enhance defense activation when treated with PGPR. Also, PGPR
elicit induced systemic resistance (ISR) (ISR is defensive capacity developed by the plant when stimulated by diverse agents including rhizobacteria) in plants by increasing the physical and mechanical
strength of the cell wall along with changing the physiological and biochemical reactions of the host.
This results in the synthesis of defense chemicals such as chitinase, peroxidase, and pathogenesisrelated proteins (Silva et al., 2004).
In addition to above-mentioned stress marker enzymes, L-proline (an amino-acid) is an important
stress marker molecule which gets accumulated in the plant tissues under several abiotic stress including salinity stress. Its accumulation increases under salinity stress and it protects folded protein
structures against denaturation, stabilizes cell membranes by interacting with phospholipids, functions as a hydroxyl radical scavenger, or serves as an energy and nitrogen source. On the whole,
L-proline plays a major role in osmotic adjustment in plant. A report by Razi and Sen (1996) suggested foliar application of a diazotrophic Klebsiella sp. could ameliorate drought stress effects on
wetland rice, as grain yield increased, together with increased nutrient uptake and L-proline content.
Thus, it is evident that PGPR modulates the level of plant stress markers under abiotic stresses.
Page 12 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
3.2.6. Production of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid deaminase
1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid (ACC) is the precursor of phytohormone ethylene. Ethylene
is produced naturally in plants, however its levels increases dramatically under abiotic stresses such
as drought, salinity, or flooding of water (Etesami et al., 2015; Jha & Saraf, 2015). Ethylene is also
known as stress hormone of plant and it has detrimental effect on plant, where it causes leaf abscission, leaf senescence, chlorosis, flower wilting, etc. Several PGPR possess ability to produce an enzyme, ACC deaminase (EC 4.1.99.4) that degrades ACC inhibiting its conversion to ethylene. Plant
surviving under abiotic stress produces larger volumes of ACC which is cleaved in to ammonia and
α-ketobutyrate by bacterial ACC deaminase, which forbids production of ethylene. In this way, ACC
deaminase producing PGPR protects plants surviving under abiotic stress from detrimental effects of
ethylene (Glick, 2014). Mayak, Tirosh, and Glick (2004) showed that the ACC deaminase-containing
bacterium Achromobacter piechaudii ARV8 could mask drought and salinity stress in tomato plants.
Ali, Charles, and Glick (2012) showed that ACC deaminase-producing Pseudomonas fluorescens YsS6
and Pseudomonas migulae 8R6 could effectively delay flower senescence of carnation. In the same
way, ACC deaminase-producing PGPR can protect plant from stress induced by temperature, water
flooding, ultraviolet radiations, and heavy metals (Ali et al., 2012; Glick, 2014; Mayak et al., 2004).
4. Commercialization of PGPR as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents
Several PGPR bacterial strains are commercially available in the form of formulated products which
is used as biofertilizers and biocontrol agents (Gohel, Singh, Vimal, Ashwini, & Chhatpar, 2006; Jha &
Saraf, 2015; Sethi, Sahu, & Adhikary, 2014). Fungal biofertilizers are usually prepared as powder
formulation, granular powder, and fluid-bed granules using dextrin as binder. Alginate gel are used
to prepare bacterial and fungal formulations (Desai, Reddy, & Kloepper, 2002). Bacterial biofertilizers
are formulated in variety of ways and available in the market. Formulation of the sporulating, Grampositive bacteria are resistant to desiccation. Gram-positive micro-organisms possess heat-resistant
spores that are exploited to formulate stable and dry powder products (Kamilova, Okon, de Weert, &
Hora, 2015). Alternative to solid-powdered formulation is the suspension of organisms in oil, where
the purpose is to exclude oxygen which prevents respiration (Honeycutt & Benson, 2001; Kamilova
et al., 2015). Addition of silica gel to oil formulation enhances the shelf life as it is reported to mutate
conidia (Tariq, John, & Powell, 1999).
PGPR-based commercialization is at a boom and several industries are commercializing bacterial
and fungal stains as PGPR-based biofertilizers, of which some examples are portrayed here: bio-formulation of Fusarium oxysporum is commercialized by Biofox (www.biofox.com) which is effective
against Fusarium moniliforme. Bacterial bioformulation of Pseudomonas aureofaciens commercialized by Ecosoil (www.ecosoil.com) is effective against Dollar spot, Anthracnose, Pythium aphanidermatum, and Michrochium patch (pink snow mold). Streptomyces griseoviridis strain K61 has been
commercially formulated by AgBio (http://www.agbio-inc.com) which is known to inhibit Fusarium
spp., Alternaria brassicola, Phomopsis spp., Botrytis spp., Pythium spp., and Phytophthora spp. that
cause seed, root, stem rot, and wilt disease of ornamental and vegetable crops. A biofertilizer containing spores of Bacillus licheniformis SB3086 produced by Novozymes can act as phosphate solubilizer strain and is also effective against Dollar spot disease of plants (http://www.bioag.novozymes.
com/en/products/unitedstates/biocontrol/Documents/14004_ActinovateSP_LG_18oz_3x5%20
5bklet_USA_4.pdf). Commercial bioformulation of Coniothyrium minitans produced by BIOVED, Ltd.,
Hungary, is effective in suppressing Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Sclerotinia minor which are phytopathogens infecting cucumber, lettuce, capsicum, tomato, and ornamental flowers. Commercial
biocontrol “EcoGuard,” marketed as a concentrated suspension of spores of Bacillus licheniformis
SB3086 has been found effective as a natural inhibitor of a variety of agronomically important fungal
diseases—particularly dollar spot and anthracnose (https://www.harrells.com/uploads/products/labels/ecogua.pdf).
Despite several Gram-negative bacterial strains known to possess efficient biocontrol ability, they are
difficult to formulate as they do not produce spores, their formulations have short shelf life, and the
bacteria gets easily killed when the formulations are desiccated (Kamilova et al., 2015; Sethi et al., 2014).
Page 13 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
Figure 5. Schematic diagram
representing mechanics of
PGPR.
The problems faced by biocontrol developers is that crops are grown under a multiplicity of climatic and
environmental conditions which include temperature, rainfall, soil type, crop variety which change from
farm to farm or even within one field, and such variations causes disparity in the potentiality of PGPRbased Biofertilizers (Kamilova et al., 2015). However, over the period of time, researchers have been able
to develop better biofertilizers with improved shelf life and possessing better and efficient strains. From
present scenario for the use of PGPR in sustainable agriculture, there is still a huge scope of enhancing
agricultural productivity using this technique (Glick, 2014).
5. Conclusion and future prospects
Population of the world is constantly increasing and so is the demand for food. Over the period of
last 40 years, PGPR has shown promises to support sustainable agriculture. Researchers have begun
to develop a much more in complexity and detailed understanding of the mechanics employed by
PGPR to facilitate the growth in plants. Summary of mechanics employed by PGPR is portrayed in
Figure 5. Such understanding has allowed the use of PGPR in agriculture. Despite such lengthy research over the period of several decades a lot more work, both basic and applied, remains to be
done to unfold some hidden potentials of PGPR which may not be known yet. Focusing commercial
market of PGPR as biofertilizers, lot of hard work is still to be done. Despite several potential PGPR
been discovered by researchers, they have not been commercialized efficiently. On the whole, it can
be said that researchers have understood the basic mechanics of PGPR, still some research is to be
carried out to better understand how microbes and plant interact and, on commercial scale, lot of
effort is still required to make PGPR an efficient technique in sustainable agriculture.
Acknowledgments
Authors are thankful to the management and
staff members of Department of Biochemistry and
Biotechnology, St. Xavier’s College, Ahmedabad
(Autonomous) and P.D. Patel Institute of Applied Sciences,
Charotar University of Science and Technology (CHARUSAT)
for providing the support in writing the article.
Funding
The authors received no direct funding for this research.
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interest.
Author details
Dweipayan Goswami1
E-mail: [email protected]
Janki N. Thakker2
E-mails: [email protected], jankithakker.bt@
ecchanga.ac.in
Pinakin C. Dhandhukia3
E-mails: [email protected], pinakin.
[email protected]
1
Department of Biochemistry and Biotechnology, St. Xavier’s
College, Ahmedabad 380009, Gujarat, India.
2
Department of Biotechnology, P.D. Patel Institute of Applied
Sciences, Charotar University of Science and Technology,
CHARUSAT Campus, Changa, Anand 388421, Gujarat, India.
3
Ashok and Rita Patel Institute of Integrated Study and
Research in Biotechnology and Allied Sciences, ADIT
Campus, New Vidyangar, Anand 388121, Gujarat, India.
Citation information
Cite this article as: Portraying mechanics of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review, Dweipayan
Goswami, Janki N. Thakker & Pinakin C. Dhandhukia,
Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500.
References
Aeron, A., Kumar, S., Pandey, P., & Maheshwari, D. K. (2011).
Emerging role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria
Page 14 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
in agrobiology. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacteria in
agrobiology: Crop ecosystems (pp. 1–36). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-18357-7_1
Ahmad, P., & Prasad, M. N. V. (2011). Environmental adaptations
and stress tolerance of plants in the era of climate change.
Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.
Alexander, M. (1977). Introduction to soil microbiology (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.
Alexandre, G., Jacoud, C., Faure, D., & Bally, R. (1996).
Population dynamics of a motile and a nonmotile Azospirillum lipoferum strain during rice
root colonization and motility variation in the
rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 19, 271–278.
doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.1996.tb00219.x
Ali, S., Charles, T. C., & Glick, B. R. (2012). Delay of flower
senescence by bacterial endophytes expressing
1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 113, 1139–1144.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2012.05409.x
Amara, U., Khalid, R., & Hayat, R. (2015). Soil bacteria and
phytohormones for sustainable crop production. In D.
K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial metabolites in sustainable
agroecosystem (pp. 87–103). Springer International.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3
Antoun, H., & Prévost, D. (2006). Ecology of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria. In Z. A. Siddiqui (Ed.), PGPR:
Biocontrol and biofertilization (pp. 1–38). Springer
Netherlands. doi:10.1007/1-4020-4152-7_1
Apel, K., & Hirt, H. (2004). Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism,
oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annual Review
of Plant Biology, 55, 373–399. doi:10.1146/annurev.
arplant.55.031903.141701
Arshad, M., & Frankenberger, W. T. (1998). Plant growth-regulating
substances in the rhizosphere: Microbial production and
functions. Advances in Agronomy, 62, 46–152.
Atzorn, R., Crozier, A., Wheeler, C. T., & Sandberg, G. (1988).
Production of gibberellins and indole-3-acetic acid by
Rhizobium phaseoli in relation to nodulation of Phaseolus
vulgaris roots. Planta, 175, 532–538. doi:10.1007/
BF00393076
Azooz, M. M., Youssef, A. M., & Ahmad, P. (2011). Evaluation
of salicylic acid (SA) application on growth, osmotic
solutes and antioxidant enzyme activities on broad bean
seedlings grown under diluted seawater. International
Journal of Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 3, 253–264.
doi:10.5897/IJPPB11.052
Banik, S., & Dey, B. K. (1982). Available phosphate content of an
alluvial soil as influenced by inoculation of some isolated
phosphate-solubilizing micro-organisms. Plant and Soil,
69, 353–364. doi:10.1007/BF02372456
Barber, S. A. (1995). Soil nutrient bioavailability: A mechanistic
approach. New York, NY: Wiley.
Bashan, Y., & Holguin, G. (1998). Proposal for the division
of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria into two
classifications: Biocontrol-PGPB (plant growth-promoting
bacteria) and PGPB. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 30,
1225–1228. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.org/agrissearch/search.do?recordID=GB1997051997
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0038-0717(97)00187-9
Bastián, F., Cohen, A., Piccoli, P., Luna, V., Bottini, R., & Baraldi,
R. (1998). Production of indole-3-acetic acid and
gibberellins A1 and A3 by Acetobacter diazotrophicus and
Herbaspirillum seropedicae in chemically-defined culture
media. Plant Growth Regulation, 24, 7–11. doi:10.1023
/A:1005964031159
Bhattacharyya, P. N., & Jha, D. K. (2012). Plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Emergence in agriculture.
World Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 28,
1327–1350. doi:10.1007/s11274-011-0979-9
Buch, A., Archana, G., & Naresh-Kumar, G. (2008). Metabolic
channeling of glucose towards gluconate in phosphate-
solubilizing Pseudomonas aeruginosa P4 under
phosphorus deficiency. Research in Microbiology, 159,
635–642. doi:10.1016/j.resmic.2008.09.012
Budi, S. W., van Tuinen, D., Arnould, C., Dumas-Gaudot, E.,
Gianinazzi-Pearson, V., & Gianinazzi, S. (2000). Hydrolytic
enzyme activity of Paenibacillus sp. strain B2 and effects
of the antagonistic bacterium on cell integrity of two soilborne pathogenic fungi. Applied Soil Ecology, 15, 191–199.
doi:10.1016/S0929-1393(00)00095-0
Burdman, S., Jurkevitch, E., Okon, Y., Subba-Rao, N. S., &
Dommergues, Y. R. (2000). Recent advances in the
use of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in
agriculture. In N. S. Subba Rao & Y. R. Dommergues (Eds.),
Microbial interactions in agriculture and forestry (Vol. 2, pp.
229–250). Enfield: Science.
Chabot, R., Antoun, H., & Cescas, M. P. (1993). Stimulation in the
growth of corn and romaine lettuce by microorganisms
dissolving inorganic phosphorus. Canadian Journal of
Microbiology, 39, 941–947. doi:10.1139/m93-142
Chang, W. T., Chen, Y. C., & Jao, C. L. (2007). Antifungal activity
and enhancement of plant growth by Bacillus cereus
grown on shellfish chitin wastes. Bioresource Technology,
98, 1224–1230. doi:10.1016/j.biortech.2006.05.005
Chen, Y. P., Rekha, P. D., Arun, A. B., Shen, F. T., Lai, W. A., &
Young, C. C. (2006). Phosphate solubilizing bacteria from
subtropical soil and their tricalcium phosphate solubilizing
abilities. Applied Soil Ecology, 34, 33–41. doi:10.1016/j.
apsoil.2005.12.002
Chet, I., Ordentlich, A., Shapira, R., & Oppenheim, A. (1990).
Mechanisms of biocontrol of soil-borne plant pathogens
by rhizobacteria. Plant and Soil, 129, 85–92. doi:10.1007/
BF00011694
ChunJuan, W., YaHui, G., Chao, W., HongXia, L., DongDong,
N., YunPeng, W., & JianHua, G. (2012). Enhancement of
tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum) tolerance to drought
stress by plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium
(PGPR) Bacillus cereus AR156. Journal of Agricultural
Biotechnology, 20, 1097–1105. Retrieved from http://
www.cabdirect.org/abstracts/20133087215.html
Compant, S., Duffy, B., Nowak, J., Clement, C., & Barka, E. A.
(2005). Use of plant growth-promoting bacteria for
biocontrol of plant diseases: Principles, mechanisms
of action, and future prospects. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 71, 4951–4959. doi:10.1128/
AEM.71.9.4951-4959.2005
Costacurta, A., & Vanderleyden, J. (1995). Synthesis
of phytohormones by plant-associated bacteria.
Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 21, 1–18.
doi:10.3109/10408419509113531
Daniel, R. (2005). The metagenomics of soil. Nature Reviews
Microbiology, 3, 470–478. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1160
Desai, S., Reddy, M. S., & Kloepper, J. W. (2002). Comprehensive
testing of biological agents. In S. S. Gnanamanickman
(Ed.), Biological control of crop diseases (pp. 387–420).
New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Ding, Y., Wang, J., Liu, Y., & Chen, S. (2005). Isolation
and identification of nitrogen-fixing bacilli
from plant rhizospheres in Beijing region.
Journal of Applied Microbiology, 99, 1271–1281.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2672.2005.02738.x
Dobbelaere, S., Vanderleyden, J., & Okon, Y. (2003). Plant
growth-promoting effects of diazotrophs in the
rhizosphere. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 22, 107–
149. doi:10.1080/713610853
Dutta, S., & Podile, A. R. (2010). Plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR): The bugs to debug the root
zone. Critical Reviews in Microbiology, 36, 232–244.
doi:10.3109/10408411003766806
Etesami, H., Alikhani, H. A., & Hosseini, H. M. (2015). Indole3-acetic acid and 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate
deaminase: Bacterial traits required in rhizosphere,
Page 15 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
rhizoplane and/or endophytic competence by beneficial
bacteria. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial metabolites
in sustainable agroecosystem (pp. 183–258). Springer
International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_8
Felse, P. A., & Panda, T. (2000). Production of microbial
chitinases–A revisit. Bioprocess Engineering, 23, 127–134.
doi:10.1007/PL00009117
Fisher, M. C., Henk, D. A., Briggs, C. J., Brownstein, J. S., Madoff,
L. C., McCraw, S. L., & Gurr, S. J. (2012). Emerging fungal
threats to animal, plant and ecosystem health. Nature,
484, 186–194. doi:10.1038/nature10947
Frankenberger, Jr., W. T., & Arshad, M. (1995). Phytohormones
in soils: Microbial production and function. New York, NY:
Marcel Dekker.
García de Salamone, I. E., Hynes, R. K., & Nelson, L. M. (2001).
Cytokinin production by plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria and selected mutants. Canadian Journal of
Microbiology, 47, 404–411. doi:10.1139/w01-029
Glick, B. R. (1995). The enhancement of plant growth by freeliving bacteria. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 41,
109–117. doi:10.1139/m95-015
Glick, B. R. (2014). Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote
plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiological
Research, 169, 30–39. doi:/10.1016/j.micres.2013.09.009
Gohel, V., Singh, A., Vimal, M., Ashwini, P., & Chhatpar, H.
S. (2006). Bioprospecting and antifungal potential
of chitinolytic microorganisms. African Journal of
Biotechnology, 5, 54–72. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.
net/1807/6640
Good, X., Kellogg, J. A., Wagoner, W., Langhoff, D., Matsumura,
W., & Bestwick, R. K. (1994). Reduced ethylene synthesis
by transgenic tomatoes expressing S-adenosylmethionine
hydrolase. Plant Molecular Biology, 26, 781–790.
doi:10.1007/BF00028848
Goswami, D., Parmar, S., Vaghela, H., Dhandhukia, P., &
Thakker, J. (2015). Describing Paenibacillus mucilaginosus
strain N3 as an efficient plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR). Cogent Food & Agriculture, 1(1),
1000714. doi:10.1080/23311932.2014.1000714
Goswami, D., Dhandhukia, P., Patel, P., & Thakker, J. N. (2014).
Screening of PGPR from saline desert of Kutch: Growth
promotion in Arachis hypogea by Bacillus licheniformis
A2. Microbiological Research, 169, 66–75. doi:10.1016/j.
micres.2013.07.004
Goswami, D., Patel, K., Parmar, S., Vaghela, H., Muley, N.,
Dhandhukia, P., & Thakker, J. N. (2014). Elucidating
multifaceted urease producing marine Pseudomonas
aeruginosa BG as a cogent PGPR and bio-control agent.
Plant Growth Regulation. doi:10.1007/s10725-014-9949-1
Goswami, D., Pithwa, S., Dhandhukia, P., & Thakker, J. N.
(2014b). Delineating Kocuria turfanensis 2M4 as a credible
PGPR: A novel IAA-producing bacteria isolated from saline
desert. Journal of Plant Interactions, 9, 566–576. doi:10.10
80/17429145.2013.871650
Goswami, D., Vaghela, H., Parmar, S., Dhandhukia, P., &
Thakker, J. N. (2013). Plant growth promoting potentials
of Pseudomonas spp. strain OG isolated from marine
water. Journal of Plant Interactions, 8, 281–290. doi:10.10
80/17429145.2013.768360
Govindasamy, V., Senthilkumar, M., & Upendra-Kumar, A. K.
(2008). PGPR-biotechnology for management of abiotic
and biotic stresses in crop plants. In D. K. Maheshwari & R.
C. Dubey (Eds.), Potential microorganisms for sustainable
agriculture (pp. 26–48). New Delhi: IK International.
Govindasamy, V., Senthilkumar, M., Magheshwaran, V., Kumar,
U., Bose, P., Sharma, V., & Annapurna, K. (2011). Bacillus
and Paenibacillus spp.: Potential PGPR for sustainable
agriculture. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Plant growth
and health promoting bacteria (pp. 333–364). Berlin:
Springer-Verlag.
Guemouri-Athmani, S., Berge, O., Bourrain, M., Mavingui, P.,
Thiéry, J. M., Bhatnagar, T., & Heulin, T. (2000). Diversity
of Paenibacillus polymyxa populations in the rhizosphere
of wheat (Triticum durum) in Algerian soils. European
Journal of Soil Biology, 36, 149–159. doi:10.1016/
S1164-5563(00)01056-6
Gutierrez-Manero, F. J., Ramos-Solano, B., Probanza, A.,
Mehouachi, J., R.Tadeo, F., & Talon, M. (2001). The
plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria Bacillus pumilus
and Bacillus licheniformis produce high amounts of
physiologically active gibberellins. Physiologia Plantarum,
111, 206–211. doi:10.1034/j.1399-3054.2001.1110211.x
Haas, D., & Défago, G. (2005). Biological control of soil-borne
pathogens by fluorescent pseudomonads. Nature Reviews
Microbiology, 3, 307–319. doi:10.1038/nrmicro1129
Halder, A. K., & Chakrabartty, P. K. (1993). Solubilization of
inorganic phosphate by rhizobium. Folia Microbiologica,
38, 325–330. doi:10.1007/BF02898602
Halder, A. K., Mishra, A. K., Bhattacharyya, P., & Chakrabartty, P.
K. (1990). Solubilization of rock phosphate by Rhizobium
and Bradyrhizobium. The Journal of General and Applied
Microbiology, 36, 81–92. doi:10.2323/jgam.36.81
Hammer, P. E., Hill, D. S., Lam, S. T., Van Pée, K. H., & Ligon, J.
M. (1997). Four genes from Pseudomonas fluorescens
that encode the biosynthesis of pyrrolnitrin. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 63, 2147–2154. Retrieved
from http://aem.asm.org/content/63/6/2147
Hedden, P., & Phillips, A. L. (2000). Gibberellin metabolism: New
insights revealed by the genes. Trends in Plant Science, 5,
523–530. doi:10.1016/S1360-1385(00)01790-8
Heulin, T., Achouak, W., Berge, O., Normand, P., & Guinebretière,
M.-H. (2002). Paenibacillus graminis sp. nov. and
Paenibacillus odorifer sp. nov., isolated from plant roots,
soil and food. International Journal of Systematic and
Evolutionary Microbiology, 52, 607–616. doi:10.1099/
ijs.0.01883-0
Hiltner, L. (1904). About recent experiences and problems
the field of soil bacteriology with special Consideration
of green manure and fallow. Arbeiten der Deutschen
Landwirtschaftlichen Gesellschaft, 98, 59–78.
Honeycutt, E. W., & Benson, D. M. (2001). Formulation of
binucleate Rhizoctonia spp. and biocontrol of Rhizoctonia
solani on impatiens. Plant Disease, 85, 1241–1248.
doi:10.1094/PDIS.2001.85.12.1241
Illmer, P., & Schinner, F. (1992). Solubilization of inorganic
phosphates by microorganisms isolated from forest
soils. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 24, 389–395.
doi:10.1016/0038-0717(92)90199-8
Jha, C. K., & Saraf, M. (2015). Plant growth promoting
rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review. E3 Journal of Agricultural
Research and Development, 5, 108–119.
Jha, C. K., Aeron, A., Patel, B. V., Maheshwari, D. K., & Saraf, M.
(2011). Enterobacter: Role in plant growth promotion.
In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacteria in agrobiology: Plant
growth responses (pp. 159–182). Berlin: Springer Berlin
Heidelberg.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-20332-9
Jha, C. K., Patel, B., & Saraf, M. (2012). Stimulation of the
growth of Jatropha curcas by the plant growth promoting
bacterium Enterobacter cancerogenus MSA2. World
Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 28, 891–899.
doi:10.1007/s11274-011-0886-0
Jha, C. K., Patel, D., Rajendran, N., & Saraf, M. (2010).
Combinatorial assessment on dominance and informative
diversity of PGPR from rhizosphere of Jatropha curcas L.
Journal of Basic Microbiology, 50, 211–217. doi:10.1002/
jobm.200900272
Kado, C. I. (1984). Phytohormone-mediated tumorigenesis
by plant pathogenic bacteria. In E. S. Dennis & B. Hohn
(Eds.), Genes involved in microbe-plant interactions (pp.
Page 16 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
311–336). Vienna: Springer.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-7091-8739-5
Kaiss-Chapman, R. W., & Morris, R. O. (1977). Trans-zeatin
in culture filtrates of Agrobacterium tumefaciens.
Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications,
76, 453–459. doi:10.1016/0006-291X(77)90746-X
Kamilova, F., Okon, Y., de Weert, S., & Hora, K. (2015).
Commercialization of microbes: Manufacturing,
inoculation, best practice for objective field testing,
and registration. In B. Lugtenberg (Ed.), Principles of
plant-microbe interactions (pp. 319–327). Springer
International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-08575-3_33
Karnwal, A., & Kaushik, P. (2011). Cytokinin production
by fluorescent Pseudomonas in the presence of rice
root exudates. Archives of Phytopathology And Plant
Protection, 44, 1728–1735. doi:10.1080/03235408.2010
.526768
Kaymak, H. C. (2011). Potential of PGPR in agricultural
innovations. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Plant growth and
health promoting bacteria (pp. 45–79). Springer Berlin
Heidelberg. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13612-2_3
Kloepper, J. W., & Schroth, M. N. (1978, August). Plant growthpromoting rhizobacteria on radishes. In Proceedings of
the 4th International Conference on Plant Pathogenic
Bacteria (Vol. 2, pp. 879–882). Angers
Kobayashi, D. Y., Reedy, R. M., Bick, J., & Oudemans, P. V.
(2002). Characterization of a chitinase gene from
Stenotrophomonas maltophilia strain 34S1 and
its involvement in biological control. Applied and
Environmental Microbiology, 68, 1047–1054. doi:10.1128/
AEM.68.3.1047-1054.2002
Koyro, H. W., Ahmad, P., & Geissler, N. (2012). Abiotic
stress responses in plants: An overview. In P.
Ahmad & M. N. V. Prasad (Eds.), Environmental
adaptations and stress tolerance of plants in the era
of climate change (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-0815-4_1
Kucey, R. M. N., Janzen, H. H., & Leggett, M. E. (1989).
Microbially mediated increases in plant-available
phosphorus. Advances in Agronomy, 42, 199–228.
doi:10.1016/S0065-2113(08)60525-8
Kudoyarova, G. R., Arkhipova, T. N., & Melent’ev, A. I.
(2015). Role of bacterial phytohormones in plant
growth regulation and their development. In D. K.
Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial metabolites in sustainable
agroecosystem (pp. 69–86). Springer International.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_4
Ladeiro, B. (2012). Saline agriculture in the 21st century: Using
salt contaminated resources to cope food requirements.
Journal of Botany. doi:10.1155/2012/310705
Leclere, V., Bechet, M., Adam, A., Guez, J. S., Wathelet,
B., Ongena, M., & Thonart, P. (2005). Mycosubtilin
overproduction by Bacillus subtilis BBG100 enhances the
organism’s antagonistic and biocontrol activities. Applied
and Environmental Microbiology, 71, 4577–4584. doi:
http://dx.doi.org/10.1128/AEM.71.8.4577-4584.2005
MacMillan, J. (2001). Occurrence of gibberellins in vascular
plants, fungi, and bacteria. Journal of Plant Growth
Regulation, 20, 387–442. doi:10.1007/s003440010038
Maheshwari, D. K., Dheeman, S., & Agarwal, M. (2015).
Phytohormone-producing PGPR for sustainable
agriculture. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial
metabolites in sustainable agroecosystem (pp. 159–182).
Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_7
Malonek, S., Bömke, C., Bornberg-Bauer, E., Rojas, M.
C., Hedden, P., Hopkins, P., & Tudzynski, B. (2005).
Distribution of gibberellin biosynthetic genes and
gibberellin production in the Gibberella fujikuroi species
complex. Phytochemistry, 66, 1296–1311. doi:10.1016/j.
phytochem.2005.04.012
Manulis, S., Valinski, L., Gafni, Y., & Hershenhorn, J. (1991).
Indole-3-acetic acid biosynthetic pathways in Erwinia
herbicola in relation to pathogenicity on Gypsophila
paniculata. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology,
39, 161–171. doi:10.1016/0885-5765(91)90001-X
Mayak, S., Tirosh, T., & Glick, B. R. (2004). Plant growthpromoting bacteria confer resistance in tomato plants
to salt stress. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry, 42,
565–572. doi:10.1016/j.plaphy.2004.05.009
Neiendam-Nielsen, M., & Sørensen, J. (1999). Chitinolytic
activity of Pseudomonas fluorescens isolates from barley
and sugar beet rhizosphere. FEMS Microbiology Ecology,
30, 217–227. doi:10.1111/j.1574-6941.1999.tb00650.x
Oberson, A., Frossard, E., Bühlmann, C., Mayer, J., Mäder, P., &
Lüscher, A. (2013). Nitrogen fixation and transfer in grassclover leys under organic and conventional cropping
systems. Plant and Soil, 371, 237–255. doi:10.1007/
s11104-013-1666-4
Ortíz-Castro, R., Valencia-Cantero, E., & López-Bucio, J. (2008).
Plant growth promotion by Bacillus megaterium involves
cytokinin signaling. Plant Signaling & Behavior, 3, 263–265.
doi:10.1094/MPMI-20-2-0207
Parvaiz, A., Khalid, U. R. H., Ashwani, K., Muhammad, A., & Nudrat,
A. A. (2012). Salt-induced changes in photosynthetic
activity and oxidative defense system of three cultivars
of mustard (Brassica juncea L.). African Journal of
Biotechnology, 11, 2694–2703. doi:10.5897/AJB11.3203
Patel, K., Goswami, D., Dhandhukia, P., & Thakker, J. (2015).
Techniques to study microbial phytohormones. In D. K.
Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial metabolites in sustainable
agroecosystem (pp. 1–27). Springer International.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_1
Patten, C. L., & Glick, B. R. (1996). Bacterial biosynthesis of
indole-3-acetic acid. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 42,
207–220. doi:10.1139/m96-032
Payne, S. M. (1994). Detection, isolation, and characterization
of siderophores. Methods in Enzymology, 235, 329–344.
doi:10.1016/0076-6879(94)35151-1
Persello-Cartieaux, F., David, P., Sarrobert, C., Thibaud, M.
C., Achouak, W., Robaglia, C., & Nussaume, L. (2001).
Utilization of mutants to analyze the interaction between
Arabidopsis thaliana and its naturally root-associated
Pseudomonas. Planta, 212, 190–198. doi:10.1007/
s004250000384
Persello-Cartieaux, F., Nussaume, L., & Robaglia, C. (2003).
Tales from the underground: molecular plantrhizobacteria interactions. Plant, Cell & Environment, 26,
189–199. doi:10.1046/j.1365-3040.2003.00956.x
Phillips, D. A., & Torrey, J. G. (1972). Studies on cytokinin
production by rhizobium. Plant Physiology, 49, 11–15.
doi:10.1104/pp.49.1.11
Ramos-Solano, B., Barriuso, J., & Gutiérrez-Mañero, F. J. (2008).
Physiological and molecular mechanisms of plant growth
promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR). In I. Ahmad, J. Pichtel,
& S. Hayat (Eds.), Plant–bacteria interactions: Strategies
and techniques to promote plant growth (pp. 41–54).
Weinheim: Wiley VCH. doi:10.1002/9783527621989.ch3
Rasool, S., Ahmad, A., Siddiqi, T. O., & Ahmad, P. (2013).
Changes in growth, lipid peroxidation and some key
antioxidant enzymes in chickpea genotypes under salt
stress. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum, 35, 1039–1050.
doi:10.1007/s11738-012-1142-4
Razi, S. S., & Sen, S. P. (1996). Amelioration of water stress
effects on wetland rice by urea-N, plant growth
regulators, and foliar spray of a diazotrophic bacterium
Klebsiella sp. Biology and Fertility of Soils, 23, 454–458.
doi:10.1007/BF00335922
Rengasamy, P. (2006). World salinization with emphasis on
Australia. Journal of Experimental Botany, 57, 1017–1023.
doi:10.1093/jxb/erj108
Page 17 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
Rodrı́guez, H., & Fraga, R. (1999). Phosphate solubilizing
bacteria and their role in plant growth promotion.
Biotechnology Advances, 17, 319–339. doi:10.1016/
S0734-9750(99)00014-2
Sadfi, N., Cherif, M., Fliss, I., Boudabbous, A., & Antoun, H.
(2001). Evaluation of bacterial isolates from salty soils
and Bacillus thuringiensis strains for the biocontrol
of Fusarium dry rot of potato tubers. Journal of Plant
Pathology, 83, 101–117. Retrieved from http://www.jstor.
org/stable/41998046
Salisbury, F. B. (1994). The role of plant hormones. In R. E.
Wilkinson (Ed.), Plant–environment interactions (pp.
39–81). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
Salisbury, F. B., & Ross, C. W. (1992). Plant physiology. Belmont,
CA: Wadsworth.
Seldin, L., Van Elsas, J. D., & Penido, E. G. C. (1984). Bacillus
azotofixans sp. nov., a nitrogen-fixing species
from Brazilian soils and grass roots. International
Journal of Systematic Bacteriology, 34, 451–456.
doi:10.1099/00207713-34-4-451
Sethi, S. K., Sahu, J. K., & Adhikary, S. P. (2014). Microbial
biofertilizers and their pilot-scale production. Microbial
Biotechnology: Progress and Trends, 297. Retrieved
from https://books.google.co.in/books?hl=en&lr=&i
d=w5DSBQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA297&dq=Constra
in+in++biofertilizer+commercialization+&ots=UtiqP
jm6uQ&sig=1PaYsw_VnEwrID4PpzEpEyrNOkA#v=on
epage&q=Constrain%20in%20%20biofertilizer%20
commercialization&f=false
Sgroy, V., Cassán, F., Masciarelli, O., Del Papa, M. F., Lagares,
A., & Luna, V. (2009). Isolation and characterization
of endophytic plant growth-promoting (PGPB) or
stress homeostasis-regulating (PSHB) bacteria
associated to the halophyte Prosopis strombulifera.
Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 85, 371–381.
doi:10.1007/s00253-009-2116-3
Shen, X., Hu, H., Peng, H., Wang, W., & Zhang, X. (2013).
Comparative genomic analysis of four representative
plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in Pseudomonas.
BMC Genomics, 14, 271. doi:10.1186/1471-2164-14-271
Siddikee, M. A., Chauhan, P. S., Anandham, R., Han, G. H., & Sa,
T. (2010). Isolation, characterization, and use for plant
growth promotion under salt stress, of ACC deaminaseproducing halotolerant bacteria derived from coastal
soil. Journal of Microbiology and Biotechnology, 20,
1577–1584.
doi:10.4014/jmb.1007.07011
Silva, H. S. A., Romeiro, R. D. S., Macagnan, D., HalfeldVieira, B. D. A., Pereira, M. C. B., & Mounteer, A. (2004).
Rhizobacterial induction of systemic resistance in tomato
plants: Non-specific protection and increase in enzyme
activities. Biological Control, 29, 288–295. doi:10.1016/
S1049-9644(03)00163-4
Someya, N., Kataoka, N., Komagata, T., Hirayae, K., Hibi, T., &
Akutsu, K. (2000). Biological control of cyclamen soilborne
diseases by Serratia marcescens strain B2. Plant Disease,
84, 334–340. doi:10.1094/PDIS.2000.84.3.334
Spaepen, S., Vanderleyden, J., & Remans, R. (2007). Indole3-acetic acid in microbial and microorganism-plant
signaling. FEMS Microbiology Reviews, 31, 425–448.
doi:10.1111/j.1574-6976.2007.00072.x
Stacey, G., Burris, R. H., & Evans, H. J. (Eds.). (1992). Biological
nitrogen fixation. Berlin: Springer Science & Business
Media.
Tariq, M. B., John, G. H., & Powell, K. A. (1999). Microbial
biopesticides: The European scene. In F. R. Hall & J. J.
Menn (Eds.), Biopesticides: Use and deliver (pp. 23–24).
Totowa, NJ: Human Press.
Thakker, J. N., Patel, N., & Kothari, I. L. (2007). Fusarium
oxysporum derived elicitor-induced changes in enzymes
of banana leaves against wilt disease. Journal of Mycology
and Plant Pathology, 37, 510–513.
Thakker, J. N., Patel, P., & Dhandhukia, P. C. (2011). Induction
of defence-related enzymes in susceptible variety of
banana: Role of Fusarium-derived elicitors. Archives of
Phytopathology and Plant Protection, 44, 1976–1984. doi:1
0.1080/03235408.2011.559032
Thakker, J. N, Patel, S., & Dhandhukia, P. C. (2012). Induction of
defense-related enzymes in banana plants: Effect of live
and dead pathogenic strain of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp.
cubense. ISRN Biotechnology. doi:10.5402/2013/601303
Upadhyaya, N. M., Letham, D. S., Parker, C. W., Hocart, C. H.,
& Dart, P. J. (1991). Do rhizobia produce cytokinins?
Biochemistry International, 24, 123–130. Retrieved from
http://europepmc.org/abstract/med/1768251
Van Loon, L. C., & Bakker, P. A. H. M. (2006). Induced systemic
resistance as a mechanism of disease suppression by
rhizobacteria. In Z. A. Siddiqui (Ed.), PGPR: Biocontrol
and biofertilization (pp. 39–66). Dordrecht: Springer
Netherlands.
van Loon, L. C., Bakker, P. A. H. M., & Pieterse, C. M. J. (1998).
Systemic resistance induced by rhizosphere bacteria.
Annual Review of Phytopathology, 36, 453–483.
doi:10.1146/annurev.phyto.36.1.453
Vessey, J. K. (2003). Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria as
biofertilizers. Plant and Soil, 255, 571–586. doi:10.1023
/A:1026037216893
von der Weid, I., Duarte, G. F., van Elsas, J. D., & Seldin, L.
(2002). Paenibacillus brasilensis sp. nov., a novel nitrogenfixing species isolated from the maize rhizosphere in
Brazil. International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary
Microbiology, 52, 2147–2153. doi:10.1099/ijs.0.02272-0
Wong, W. S., Tan, S. N., Ge, L., Chen, X., & Yong, J. W. H. (2015).
The importance of phytohormones and microbes
in biofertilizers. In D. K. Maheshwari (Ed.), Bacterial
metabolites in sustainable agroecosystem (pp. 105–158).
Springer International. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24654-3_6
Zahedi, A. M., Fazeli, I., Zavareh, M., Dorry, H., &
Gerayeli, N. (2012). Evaluation of the sensitive
components in seedling growth of common bean
(Phaseolus vulgaris L.) affected by salinity. Asian Journal of
Crop Science, 4, 159–164. Retrieved from http://agris.fao.
org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=DJ2012076165
http://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ajcs.2012.159.164
Page 18 of 19
Goswami et al., Cogent Food & Agriculture (2016), 2: 1127500
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/23311932.2015.1127500
© 2016 The Author(s). This open access article is distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) 4.0 license.
You are free to:
Share — copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format
Adapt — remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, even commercially.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms as long as you follow the license terms.
Under the following terms:
Attribution — You must give appropriate credit, provide a link to the license, and indicate if changes were made.
You may do so in any reasonable manner, but not in any way that suggests the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from doing anything the license permits.
Cogent Food & Agriculture (ISSN: 2331-1932) is published by Cogent OA, part of Taylor & Francis Group.
Publishing with Cogent OA ensures:
•
Immediate, universal access to your article on publication
•
High visibility and discoverability via the Cogent OA website as well as Taylor & Francis Online
•
Download and citation statistics for your article
•
Rapid online publication
•
Input from, and dialog with, expert editors and editorial boards
•
Retention of full copyright of your article
•
Guaranteed legacy preservation of your article
•
Discounts and waivers for authors in developing regions
Submit your manuscript to a Cogent OA journal at www.CogentOA.com
Page 19 of 19