Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii suppresses the phytopathogen, Cochliobolus heterostrophus and modulates maize defenses

Imtiaz Ahmad; María del Mar Jiménez-Gasco; Dawn S. Luthe; Mary E. Barbercheck

doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0272944

Abstract

Fungi in the genus Metarhizium (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) are insect-pathogens and endophytes that can benefit their host plant through growth promotion and protection against stresses. Cochliobolus heterostrophus (Drechsler) Drechsler (Pleosporales: Pleosporaceae) is an economically-significant phytopathogenic fungus that causes Southern Corn Leaf Blight (SCLB) in maize. We conducted greenhouse and lab-based experiments to determine the effects of endophytic M. robertsii J.F. Bisch., Rehner & Humber on growth and defense in maize (Zea mays L.) infected with C. heterostrophus. We inoculated maize seeds with spores of M. robertsii and, at the 3 to 4-leaf stage, the youngest true leaf of M. robertsii-treated and untreated control plants with spores of C. heterostrophus. After 96 h, we measured maize height, above-ground biomass, endophytic colonization by M. robertsii, severity of SCLB, and expression of plant defense genes and phytohormone content. We recovered M. robertsii from 74% of plants grown from treated seed. The severity of SCLB in M. robertsii-treated maize plants was lower than in plants inoculated only with C. heterostrophus. M. robertsii-treated maize inoculated or not inoculated with C. heterostrophus showed greater height and above-ground biomass compared with untreated control plants. Height and above-ground biomass of maize co-inoculated with M. robertsii and C. heterostrophus were not different from M. robertsii-treated maize. M. robertsii modulated the expression of defense genes and the phytohormone content in maize inoculated with C. heterostrophus compared with plants not inoculated with C. heterostrophus and control plants. These results suggest that endophytic M. robertsii can promote maize growth and reduce development of SCLB, possibly by induced systemic resistance mediated by modulation of phytohormones and expression of defense and growth-related genes in maize.

Citation: Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco MdM, Luthe DS, Barbercheck ME (2022) Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii suppresses the phytopathogen, Cochliobolus heterostrophus and modulates maize defenses. PLoS ONE 17(9): e0272944. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944

Editor: Mohsin Tariq, Government College University Faisalabad, PAKISTAN

Received: April 21, 2022; Accepted: July 31, 2022; Published: September 22, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Ahmad et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: All data files are available from the OSF database (https://osf.io/e9tq7/).

Funding: The funding program is United States Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Organic Transitions (ORG) (https://www.nifa.usda.gov/grants/funding-opportunities/organic-transitions-org) awarded to M.E.B., M.d.M. J.-G., and D.L. under award numbers 2016-51106-25715 and 2019-51106-30198. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

Plants face various biotic and abiotic challenges such as diseases, insect pests, and water and nutrient deficiencies that can significantly decrease crop yield and quality [1]. To overcome such challenges, growers typically apply synthetic pesticides and fertilizers. While these materials can protect crops from stress, their extensive use has been associated with risks to environmental sustainability and human health [2]. To defend against biotic and abiotic stresses, multilayered defense strategies have evolved in plants [3–5], including mutualistic associations with microbes [6–9]. Soilborne microbes interact with plants, improving their fitness [10–12] and are key drivers and modulators of plant diversity and productivity [13, 14]. Endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi (EIPF) occur naturally in soil as rhizospheric and/or endophytic microbes in managed and unmanaged habitats [15]. They can infect insects and plants directly, and when associated with plants, provide multiple benefits including plant growth promotion and nutrient transfer [16–18], plant disease suppression [19–22], and insect growth suppression [4, 23, 24].

EIPF in the genus Metarhizium (Hypocreales: Clavicipitaceae) have a broad arthropod host range and are well-adapted to agroecosystems [25–29]. Several Metarhizium spp. naturally associate with the roots of grasses, shrubs, herbs, and trees under field conditions [30, 31]. Experimentally, multiple species of Metarhizium colonize the roots of many plant species, including switchgrass, haricot bean, wheat, and soybean and promote plant growth [4, 7, 16, 32–36]. For example, plant growth promotion has been observed for multiple species of Metarhizium spp. in tomato [34], maize [4, 7, 37, 38], soybean [39], peanut [40], potato [41], cassava [35], sweet pepper [42], switchgrass and haricot beans [36].

Mutualistic plant-microbe interactions can induce phytohormone defense mechanisms against herbivores in plants [43, 44]. In general, the jasmonic acid (JA) and salicylic acid (SA) pathways modulate plant defense [45–50]. Beneficial plant-microbe interactions, including those involving fungi, can modulate SA and JA pathways [4, 51–53]. For instance, Rivas-Franco et al. (2020) reported increased levels of SA and JA in maize roots endophytically colonized by M. anisopliae [54–57]. Plant-fungal symbioses may result in modulation of the defense signaling cascade as an alternative adaptive strategy to cope with hostile environments. Such responses by plants involve sensitizing defense reactions to harsh conditions in the absence of a challenge (trigger of stimulus). This process is referred to as ‘priming’ [58–60]. Other phytohormones can be affected by endophytic and pathogenic colonization of plants. For example, abscisic acid (ABA) is a vital phytohormone induced in response to various biotic and abiotic stresses [61]. Under salinity stress, Metarhizium-inoculated soybeans showed higher JA levels and lower ABA compared to the non-inoculated control suggesting mitigation of salinity stress in M. anisopliae inoculated-plants [62]. Gibberellins (GA) are primarily involved in plant growth regulation [63] but recent reports revealed that they also regulate certain biological processes in response to stress [64]. Gibberellins and ABA antagonistically mediate many plant developmental processes [65].

Southern Corn Leaf Blight (SCLB), caused by the phytopathogen Cochliobolus heterostrophus, is regarded as one of the most destructive foliar diseases of maize due to its extensive impact on crop yield and quality [66]. Biological control, including the use of soil microorganisms to control plant diseases, offers an attractive alternative to management of plant disease with pesticides. There is increasing interest in understanding the role of and potential for exploiting the soil microbial community, and of fungal endophytes, specifically, to enhance plant productivity and tolerance to insect pests and phytopathogens in agricultural systems [67, 68]. The ability to predictably exploit soil microorganisms for biological control will require a better understanding of defense modulation of host plants induced by endophytic fungi generally, and Metarhizium spp. particularly.

Here we determined the effects of endophytic M. robertsii on indicators of maize growth and defense and on the severity of disease caused by C. heterostrophus. Our specific objectives were to assess the effect of endophytic M. robertsii on: 1) the severity of SCLB caused by C. heterostrophus; 2) the modulation of phytohormone content in maize with and without SCLB; and 3) the expression of key defense genes in maize with and without SCLB. We hypothesized that endophytic M. robertsii will suppress the severity of SCLB caused by C. heterostrophus. We also hypothesized that endophytic M. robertsii will modulate the expression of defense genes and phytohormone content in maize in response to the infection by C. heterostrophus.

Materials and methods

Fungal isolates

We used an isolate of M. robertsii J. F. Bischoff, Rehner & Humber originally collected from a field experiment designed to determine the benefits and trade-offs of cover crop diversity on a suite of ecosystem functions in an organic agronomic grain production system [27]. We obtained the isolate by sentinel insect baiting of soil with Galleria mellonella [69] and obtained pure cultures by culturing single conidia from sporulating G. mellonella cadavers on dodine-free semi-selective CTC medium [70].

We confirmed the identity of M. robertsii using routine morphological and molecular methods [71, 72]. We stored conidia of single spore isolates of M. robertsii on beads (Pro-Lab Diagnostics Microbank™ Bacterial and Fungal Preservation System) at -80°C for use in experiments. We submitted the translation elongation factor 1-alpha (TEF1-alpha) sequence of M. robertsii to NCBI GenBank under accession number MK988559 and the single spore isolate culture to The Agricultural Research Service Collection of Entomopathogenic Fungal Cultures (ARSEF) under the accession number 14325.

To produce inoculum of M. robertsii, we transferred beads from cryovials onto PDA medium and incubated the plates at 25 ± 2°C in the dark for ~14 days. We harvested the conidia under aseptic conditions and suspended them in a sterile 0.1% aqueous solution (v/v) of Triton™ X-100 (Dow Chemical Co., Midland, MI). We homogenized the conidial suspension by vigorously shaking for one minute and filtered the homogenized conidial suspension through four layers of sterile cheese cloth to separate the fungal mycelium fragments from conidia and determined the concentration of the stock conidial suspension under a compound microscope at 400X magnification with a Neubauer hemocytometer. We adjusted the concentration of M. robertsii to 1 x 10⁸ conidia ml^-1 for seed inoculation. To determine the viability of the conidia, we assessed their ability to form a germ tube by plating 80 μl of the conidial suspension onto PDA medium and incubating in the dark at 25 ± 2°C for 24 h, then calculated percent viability by randomly counting 200 conidia at 400X magnification. We considered conidia viable if hyphae were visible or the germ tube was at least twice the length of the conidium. We only used conidial suspensions with germination rates of greater than 90% in experiments.

We obtained C. heterostrophus from Dr. Surinder Chopra in the Department of Plant Science at Penn State University, USA. We produced inoculum and evaluated the viability of conidia of C. heterostrophus by the method described above for M. robertsii. We adjusted the concentration of C. heterostrophus to 1 x 10⁵ conidia ml^-1 for leaf inoculation with a 250 ml spray bottle.

Greenhouse experiment

Surface disinfection of maize seeds.

We surface disinfected seeds (Zea mays var. ‘Blue River LT671669’, organic) in a sterile laminar flow hood by immersion in 0.1% sodium hypochlorite for two minutes followed by soaking in 70% ethanol for three minutes and rinsing three times in sterile distilled water [68]. To confirm successful surface disinfection, we placed three randomly selected seeds onto a Petri plate (100 x 15 mm) containing Sabouraud dextrose agar (SDA) medium. We plated 50 ml of the final rinse water onto Petri plates containing SDA and incubated them in darkness at 25 ± 2°C for ~10 days. Surface disinfection was considered successful if no microbial growth was observed on the plates after 10 days.

Soil preparation.

We prepared plant growth medium by mixing steamed field soil and potting mix (Vigoro Industries, Inc., Northbrook, IL) in a 1:1 ratio (v/v). We steamed the growth medium twice for 2 h at ~120°C in a steam sterilizer to reduce the prevalence of other microbes in the plant growth medium. After steaming the medium, we waited ~48 h before using it in experiments to avoid toxicity to plants.

Seed treatment.

To inoculate the surface-disinfected seed with M. robertsii, we placed seeds in 100 ml of freshly prepared conidial suspension (1 x 10⁸ conidia ml^-1) in a 250 ml sterile beaker and non-inoculated control seeds in a 250 ml beaker containing 100 ml of 0.1% Triton X-100 aqueous solution and covered them with aluminum foil. We placed the beakers containing the inoculated and non-inoculated seeds on a shaker at 10 rpm for 2 h and then planted the seeds directly from beakers with sterile spatulas.

Plant pot preparation.

We filled steam-sterilized plastic pots (15 cm diam x 14.7 cm deep) with the prepared growth medium. Into each prepared pot, we planted one M. robertsii-treated or non-treated maize seed at a depth of ~2.5 cm. We prepared ~30 to 35 pots for each of four treatments and repeated the experiment twice. The four treatments included: 1) plants grown from M. robertsii-treated seed; 2) plants grown from M. robertsii-treated seed and inoculated with C. heterostrophus; 3) plants grown from grown untreated seed and inoculated with C. heterostrophus; and 4) an untreated control. Each treatment was represented by a total of 30 to 35 maize plants.

Inoculation of plants with C. heterostrophus.

We placed the prepared pots randomly on a greenhouse bench with 16L:8D photoperiod at 25 ± 3°C and provided water equally as needed, approximately 2–3 times per week. At maize growth stage ~V3-V4 (~21 days after germination), we inoculated plants randomly assigned to the C. heterostrophus-only and the C. heterostrophus + M. robertsii treatments with C. heterostrophus and plants randomly assigned to the M. robertsii-only or untreated control with an aqueous solution of 0.1% Triton X-100 with a 250 ml sprayer bottle to run-off. We covered all plants with clear plastic sheeting for 96 h to maintain humidity to facilitate C. heterostrophus infection.

Plant response.

We terminated the experiment ~96 h after inoculation with C. heterostrophus when maize plants were at growth stage V4 to V5. For all plants, we measured height from the base of the plant to the tip of the longest fully emerged true leaf and above-ground biomass by cutting the plant at the soil surface with clean scissors. We collected two, 5-cm long root sections from each plant to assay for endophytic colonization by M. robertsii. The fourth true leaf was removed from each plant for analysis of disease severity, endophytic colonization by M. robertsii, defense gene expression and phytohormone content. Approximately ~100–150 mg of the fourth true leaf was removed and placed into pre-labeled 2 ml Eppendorf tube, flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, and then stored at -80°C until processing for gene expression and phytohormone content. To determine biomass of each plant, we placed the remaining plant tissue in separate dried and pre-weighed brown paper bags, and oven-dried the plant material at 60°C for ~21 days, when the dried plant material was weighed.

Estimation of disease severity.

We measured the severity of SCLB by scanning the fourth true leaf of each plant and measuring the percentage of leaf area covered by lesions caused by SCLB using ImageJ version 1.53 [73].

Endophytic colonization by M. robertsii.

We evaluated the endophytic colonization of leaf and root tissue from each maize plant. The two 5-cm long primary root sections excised from each plant were rinsed with tap water to remove soil. We surface disinfested the excised leaf and root sections individually by submerging in 0.5% sodium hypochlorite for three minutes followed by 70% ethanol for three minutes, followed by serially rinsing three times in sterile deionized water. To confirm tissue disinfestation, we plated 50 μl of the final rinse water onto SDA medium and incubated the dishes at ~25 ± 2°C for 10 days in darkness. We cut off ~1 mm of outer edges of the surface disinfested leaf and ends of the root tissues using sterile dissecting scissors to remove dead cells and cut each leaf section into six, 6 x 6 mm sections and each root section into three, 6 mm long sections so that each plant generated six leaf and six root sections. We plated each tissue type from each plant in a labeled petri dish prepared with CTC medium by pressing the tissue flat against the surface of the medium. The plates were sealed with parafilm and incubated in dark at 25 ± 2°C for 14 days. We identified M. robertsii by characteristic white hyphal growth and dark green conidia and then cultured fungi emerging from the plant sections to confirm their identity as M. robertsii by molecular methods [72]. We considered a plant to be endophytically colonized when we observed growth of M. robertsii from one or more root or leaf sections. We calculated the proportion of endophytic plants by dividing the total number of colonized plants by the total number of M. robertsii-treated plants.

Phytohormone profiles and defense-related gene expression in maize.

To analyze maize defense gene expression, we homogenized ~100 mg of the leaf tissue in liquid nitrogen (GenoGrinder 2000, OPS Diagnostics). We extracted RNA with 1 mL of TRIzol (Life Technologies, USA) per ~100 mg of tissue. The genomic DNA-free RNA was quantified (Nanodrop, Thermo-Fisher Scientific), and 1 μg of total RNA was used to prepare complementary DNA (cDNA) by using High Capacity cDNA Reverse Transcription kit (Applied Biosystems). Then, qRT-PCR was performed (7500 Fast Real-Time qPCR, Applied Biosystems, ThermoFisher Scientific, Inc.) with Fast Start Universal SYBR Green Master Mix (Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.) with actin as a reference gene and gene-specific primers (S1 Table).

The phytohormone profiling of pre-weighed maize leaf tissue was performed by the Proteomic and Metabolomic Facility of The Nebraska Center for Biotechnology at The University of Nebraska, Lincoln.

Statistical analyses

We performed all statistical analyses in JMP^® Pro 16.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). We used mixed model ANOVA for all response variables and designated all treatment variables as fixed factors and block (trial replicate number) as a random factor. When the model was significant, we used Tukey’s honest significant difference post-hoc test of means. We considered results of analyses significant at P < 0.05. For all analyses, we transformed proportions using the square root arcsine to meet assumptions of normality, equality of variances and to reduce heterogeneity of variances [74]. Data presented in figures and tables are not transformed.

Results

Endophytic colonization and maize growth

We recovered M. robertsii from 74% of ~V4-V5 maize plants grown from M. robertsii-treated seed.

Height of ~V4-V5 maize in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (95.79 ± 2.22 cm) and M. robertsii-only (95.25 ± 1.76 cm) treatments was greater than the height of plants in the untreated control (92.51 ± 1.48 cm) and C. heterostrophus-only (92.08 ± 1.89 cm) treatment. The height of maize plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment was not different than the untreated control (Fig 1).

Download:

Fig 1. Mean height of V4 maize.

End-of-experiment height of maize in M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C) (F_3,129 = 3.05; P = 0.03). Values are untransformed means ± standard error of the mean (SEM); different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g001

The above-ground biomass of ~V4-V5 maize plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (4.16 ± 0.27 g) and M. robertsii-only (4.23 ± 0.22 g) treatments was greater than the biomass of plants in the untreated control plants (3.55 ± 0.35 g) and the C. heterostrophus-only treatments (3.5 ± 0.32 g). Biomass of plants in the C. heterostrophus-only treatment was not different from control plants. Biomass of plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus and M. robertsii-only treatments were not different (Fig 2).

Download:

Fig 2. Above-ground biomass of V4 maize.

End-of-experiment mean aboveground biomass of maize in the M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C) (F_3,129 = 6.05; P = 0.0007). Values are untransformed means ± SEM; different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g002

SCLB

There was no SCLB caused by C. heterostrophus in untreated control or in plants in M. robertsii-only treatments. The percent diseased area of maize leaves in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (9.2 ± 2.17%) treatment was lower than in the C. heterostrophus-only (18.05 ± 4.5%) treatment (Fig 3).

Download:

Fig 3. Area of diseased leaf tissue in V4 maize.

End-of-experiment mean percentage of diseased maize leaf area in the M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C) (F_3,65 = 118; P <0.0001). Values are untransformed means ± SEM; different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g003

Maize defense gene expression

Lipoxygenase pathway.

The relative expression level of the lipoxygenase 1 (lox1) gene was upregulated in maize leaf tissue in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (3.47 ± 0.54) treatment compared to the untreated control (1.01 ± 0.14), M. robertsii-only (0.47 ± 0.03) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (1.2 ± 0.17) treatments. There was no difference in the expression level of lox1 among plants in the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 4A).

Download:

Fig 4. Relative expression of lipoxygenases genes.

Mean relative expression of genes belonging to the JA pathway (a) lipoxygenase 1 (lox1) (F_3,43 = 24; P < 0.0001), (b) lipoxygenase 3 (lox3) (F_3,43 = 8.6; P < 0.0001), (c) lipoxygenase 6 (lox6) (F_3,43 = 3.8; P = 0.02) from 4^th true leaf of V4 maize in the M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C). Values are untransformed means ± SEM; different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g004

The relative expression level of the lipoxygenase 3 (lox3) gene was upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (3.34 ± 0.9) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (0.8 ± 0.14), M. robertsii-only (0.53 ± 0.13) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (0.8 ± 0.13) treatments. There was no difference in the expression level of lox3 in the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 4B).

The relative expression level of lipoxygenase 6 (lox6) gene was upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (3.28 ± 1.07) treatment compared to plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (1.12 ± 1.07) treatment. There was no difference in the expression level of lox6 among the untreated control (1.73 ± 0.26), M. robertsii-only (1.79 ± 0.26) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 4C).

Pathogenesis-related chitinases.

The expression level of endochitinase A was upregulated in the plants the C. heterostrophus-only (5.11 ± 1.49) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (0.32 ± 0.12) and M. robertsii-only (0.11 ± 0.02) treatment. There was no difference in the expression level of endochitinase A among the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (2.50 ± 0.53) treatments. There was no difference in the expression level of endochitinase A between the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus and C. heterostrophus-only treatments (Fig 5A).

Download:

Fig 5. Relative expression of pathogenesis-related defense genes.

Mean relative expression of (a) endochitinase A (F_3,43 = 10.21; P < 0.005; (b) pathogenesis-related gene 4 (pr4) (F_3,43 = 11.79; P < 0.0001) and (c) pathogenesis-related gene 5 (pr5) (F_3,43 = 4.88; P = 0.005) from 4^th true leaf of V4 maize in the M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C). Values are untransformed means ± SEM; different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g005

The relative expression level of the pathogenesis-related gene 4 (pr4) was upregulated in the plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (269.13 ± 82.6) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (1.79 ± 0.64), M. robertsii-only (37.13 ± 16.22) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (5.79 ± 1.14) treatments. There was no difference in the expression level of pr4 among the non-inoculated, and the M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 5B).

Pathogenesis-related proteins.

The relative expression level of pathogenesis-related gene 5 (pr5), a marker of the SA response pathway, was upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (101.09 ± 37.86) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (4.04 ± 0.97). There was no difference in the expression of pr5 among the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only (49.82 ± 17.6) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (16.5 ± 2.53) treatments. There was no difference in the expression level of pr5 among plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus, M. robertsii-only and C. heterostrophus-only treatments (Fig 5C).

Phytohormone content of maize leaf tissue

We measured the content of several growth- and defense-related phytohormones in ~V4-V5 maize leaf tissue, including cis-zeatin, gibberellins, DIMBOA (2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one), OPDA (12-oxo-phytodienoic acid), indole acetic acid, JA, SA, and ABA. Here we present results only for those that differed among treatments.

Cis-zeatin.

Cis-zeatin content was greater in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (0.45 ± 0.13 ng/g FW) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (0.13 ± 0.04 ng/g FW). There was no difference in cis-zeatin among the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only (0.26 ± 0.1 ng/g FW) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (0.23 ± 0.06 ng/g FW) treatments (Fig 6A).

Download:

Fig 6. Phytohormone profiles.

Mean content of the phytohormones (a) cis-zeatin (F_3,23 = 3.27; P = 0.04), (b) gibberellin 19 (F_3,14 = 14.14; P = 0.0002), and (c) salicylic acid (SA) (F_3,22 = 5.17; P = 0.007) from leaf tissue of V4 maize in the M. robertsii (Mr), C. heterostrophus (Ch), M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (Mr + Ch) treatments and untreated control (C). Values are untransformed means ± SEM; different letters indicate significant differences at α = 0.05.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.g006

Gibberellin 19.

Gibberellin 19 content in maize leaf tissue was lower in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only (4.52 ± 0.46 ng/g FW) and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (3.15 ± 0.61 ng/g FW) treatments compared to M. robertsii-only (9.6 ± 1.58 ng/g FW) treatment. There was no difference in gibberellin 19 between the non-inoculated control (7.56 ± 0.04 ng/g FW) and M. robertsii-only treatment. There was no difference in gibberellin 19 between C. heterostrophus-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 6B).

Salicylic acid (SA).

Content of SA in maize leaf tissue was greater in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus (25.82 ± 6.33 ng/g FW) treatment compared to the non-inoculated control (11.15 ± 2.43 ng/g FW) and M. robertsii-only (9.58 ± 2.40 ng/g FW) treatment There was no difference in SA between the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only and C. heterostrophus-only (22.85 ± 3.66 ng/g FW) treatments. There was no difference in SA in plants in the C. heterostrophus-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments (Fig 6C).

Discussion

Over the past decades, interest in exploiting beneficial soil microbes for plant growth promotion and pest and phytopathogen suppression through endophytic colonization of crops has grown rapidly [4, 75]. Soilborne endophytic insect pathogenic fungi have been the subject of extensive research since the discovery of their beneficial effects on plants when occurring as a rhizosphere inhabitant or endophyte [15]. Metarhizium spp. have long been studied as direct pathogens of insects and are increasingly being investigated for their indirect effects on phytopathogens through endophytic growth in host plants [19–22, 67, 76]. The mechanisms that allow plants to differentiate between colonization by mutualists and phytopathogens is still largely unknown, and our study contributes to the knowledge of differential plant immune responses to colonization by endophytic and phytopathogenic fungi.

We investigated plant growth and defense modulation in maize-M. robertsii-phytopathogen interactions. We achieved 74% colonization of maize plants grown from M. robertsii-treated seeds suggesting that seed inoculation is a reliable method for establishing M. robertsii as an endophyte of maize. We re-isolated M. robertsii in both root and leaf tissue of maize, indicating that M. robertsii established systemically. These results are consistent with studies that report systemic colonization of diverse plant species by Metarhizium spp. [4, 7, 15, 34, 38, 77–80].

Consistent with previous studies, maize plants grown from M. robertsii-treated seed had greater height and above-ground biomass compared to the non-inoculated control when the experiment was terminated [4, 7]. In our study, there was no difference in height and above-ground biomass of maize in response to C. heterostrophus after 96 h of inoculation. However, the absence of effects of phytopathogen infection on maize growth may have been due to the short time between inoculation with C. heterostrophus and harvest of plants for defense gene expression and phytohormone analyses.

We measured the percentage of diseased leaf area caused by C. heterostrophus in maize plants grown with and without M. robertsii treatment. There were no signs of C. heterostrophus or symptoms of SCLB disease on plants in the non-inoculated control or M. robertsii-only treatment. The percentage of area of maize leaves showing signs or symptoms of SCLB disease in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment was lower than in the C. heterostrophus-only treatment. The lower severity of SCLB disease in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may be due to modulation of certain plant defense pathways by endophytic M. robertsii that conferred resistance to the phytopathogen. Plants can modulate levels of phytohormones or reactive oxygen species in the presence of stress that may contribute to plant protection from phytopathogens [81]. These results are consistent with other studies that showed suppressive effects of M. robertsii against phytopathogens. For example, soil inoculation with M. robertsii resulted in reduction of disease caused by Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli in haricot beans [22].

We studied the expression level of genes involved in the production of lipoxygenases, enzymes involved in biosynthesis of oxylipins. Oxylipins are precursor metabolites of jasmonic acid (JA) that plays an important role in plant defense in response to herbivores, and necrotrophic and symbiotic fungi [82]. We found that the expression of lipoxygenase genes was regulated in response to colonization by M. robertsii and infection caused by C. heterostrophus. The expression levels of lox1 and lox3 were upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment compared with those in the untreated control, and the M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments. Endophytic colonization by M. robertsii down-regulated the expression of lox1 and lox3 and their levels were equivalent to those in the control plants. The expression level of lox6 was down-regulated in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment compared to the C. heterostrophus-only treatment. The JA pathway is involved in the defense response against necrotrophic and symbiotic fungi in plants [83]. Plants can fine-tune their defense and growth-related pathways depending upon the nature of the challenges they face [49, 84]. In our study, the expression of lipoxygenase genes in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may have been down-regulated because lipoxygenases are induced in response to herbivory [82]. In the absence of herbivory, down-regulation of genes involved in herbivory-related pathways may be a strategy by plants to reduce defense and fitness costs and activate defense-related pathways against C. heterostrophus [85]. It is also possible that M. robertsii, as the first colonizer, may have down-regulated the expression of genes involved in herbivory-related pathways, and later infection by C. heterostrophus may not have had sufficient signal or power to regulate the expression of lipoxygenase genes. The plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may have used their energy to respond to signals elicited by the first colonizer, M. robertsii. Moreover, defense response of plants can involve other phytohormones such as auxins, cytokinin, brassinosteroids, and abscisic acid, through cross-communication in addition to only regulating SA, JA and ethylene pathways in modulating plant-pathogen interactions [86].

Pathogenesis-related genes are involved in plant protection against phytopathogens [87]. In addition to the evolution of other defense strategies, maize accumulates defensive proteins encoded by genes such as endochitinase A that suppress plant defense against herbivory but trigger defense against phytopathogens [3]. In our study, the expression levels of endochitinase A and pr4 were upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment relative to the untreated control and M. robertsii-only treatment. Higher levels of expression of endochitinase A and pr4 in plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment suggest the recruitment of chitinases to degrade fungal chitin as a defense mechanism [4]. The accumulation of chitin-degrading proteins associated with the modulation of expression of these genes may confer an additional layer of defense even in the absence of herbivory. Down-regulation of pr4 in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may be a strategy to reduce fitness costs and mount a relatively more effective defense signal than the upregulation of pr4 [3].

We measured the expression level of pr5, a marker of the SA response pathway. Expression of pr5 was upregulated in plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment compared to the non-inoculated control. There was no difference in the expression level of pr5 gene among the non-inoculated control, and M. robertsii and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments. The higher level of pr5 expression in the C. heterostrophus treatment suggests that maize plants perceived and responded to infection by accumulation of pr5 to activate the SA-dependent pathway [50]. Our study is consistent with other reports on the regulation of the SA-dependent pathways in response to infection by phytopathogens in maize [54].

Phytohormones are among the key players in modulating plant defense signaling through positive and negative interactions for efficient stress management through induced systemic resistance (ISR) or systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [47]. Furthermore, pathogens can affect defense signaling networks of plants for their own benefit through phytohormone homeostasis [88]. In our study, we evaluated growth- and defense-related phytohormone content in maize leaf tissue. There was no difference in the JA content among different treatments (data not reported). This could be due to the absence of herbivory in our experiment as the JA-dependent pathway is primarily a defense response against herbivores. Content of cis-zeatin, a cytokinin involved in plant defense against various biotic and abiotic stresses, was greater in plants in the C. heterostrophus treatment compared to the non-inoculated control, whereas there was no difference in cis-zeatin among the non-inoculated control, and the M. robertsii-only and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus-treatments. These results suggest that C. heterostrophus may have induced the production of cis-zeatin, whereas the suppression of cis-zeatin in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may be a defense strategy to activate other, relatively more aggressive, signaling pathways for a better induction of defense [89]. In another study, cis-zeatin and trans-zeatin differentially suppressed the infection caused Pseudomonas syringae in tobacco where trans-zeatin induced a stronger immune response [90]. Cis-zeatin is considered less active compared to its trans isomer and plays a significant role in plant defense against phytopathogens [90]. Plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may not have induced the biosynthesis of cis-zeatin in response to C. heterostrophus because of the energy required to respond to the earlier establishment of M. robertsii.

Gibberellins are phytohormones involved in regulation of plant growth and development. In our study, gibberellin 19 content was lower in plants in the C. heterostrophus and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments compared with those in the M. robertsii-only treatment. There was no difference in gibberellin 19 content between the non-inoculated control and M. robertsii-only treatment or between the C. heterostrophus- and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments. The higher level of gibberellin 19 in plants in the M. robertsii-only treatment and lower level in plants in the C. heterostrophus and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments may be due to the activation of plant growth promotion pathways by M. robertsii and growth suppressive effects of C. heterostrophus, respectively. Some endophytes produce gibberellins and auxins in planta that promote plant growth [62, 91, 92]. Hu and Bidochka (2021) reported that combined or separate inoculation with either M. robertsii or the phytopathogenic F. solani did not induce any changes in gibberellin content in common bean leaf tissue compared with non-inoculated control plants [19].

Plants can regulate their growth and defense by the SA-dependent pathway, which is involved in defense against biotrophic phytopathogens and phloem feeding insects [50]. In our study, SA content was greater in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment compared to the non-inoculated control and M. robertsii- only treatment. There was no difference in SA content in plants among the non-inoculated control, M. robertsii-only and C. heterostrophus-only treatments. Nor was there a difference in SA content between the plants in the C. heterostrophus and M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatments. The higher level of SA in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment may be due to the cumulative response against M. robertsii and C. heterostrophus where plants may have perceived M. robertsii as a biotrophic invader and responded by eliciting the SA response pathway [50]. Our results are consistent with other studies that reported modulation of the level of SA in response to endophytic M. anisopliae in maize and fungal phytopathogens [19, 54].

Mounting a defense response by plants in response to stresses involves ISR and SAR, which are regulated by complex interactions of signaling molecules in which phytohormones play a central role [47] and can be induced by phytopathogens, chemical inducers, insect herbivores or specific root-colonizing microbes, such as mycorrhizae and rhizobacteria [48, 93]. ISR- and SAR- related defense involves JA- and SA-dependent pathways [93–96] wherein the regulation of phytohormone gene expression acts a defensive strategy against different stresses that allows successful establishment of symbioses [95, 97].

We found that endophytic colonization of maize by M. robertsii increased plant growth, possibly through better nutrient acquisition or assimilation mediated through the activation of plant growth-related signaling pathways. Endophytic M. robertsii reduced the severity of SCLB compared to the non-endophytic maize plants, perhaps due to disease resistance caused by accumulation of anti-fungal compounds mediated through the establishment of M. robertsii as an endophyte. We observed that endophytic colonization by M. robertsii down-regulated the expression of pathogenesis-related genes. It is possible that endophytic colonization may have resulted in the down-regulation of certain pathogenesis-related genes but may have induced the upregulation of other defense-related pathways through hormonal cross talk for a better defense against SCLB. We found that endophytic M. robertsii down-regulated the expression of lipoxygenases. Because lipoxygenases are usually involved in plant defense against herbivory, M. robertsii may have induced the down-regulation of lipoxygenases for balancing the trade-off between plant growth and defense in the absence of herbivory. In our study, we also found that the level of SA was greater in plants in the M. robertsii + C. heterostrophus treatment compared to the non-inoculated control. Although endophytic M. robertsii down-regulated the expression of lipoxygenases and pathogenesis-related genes in maize, SA content was greater in endophytically colonized plants. This may be due to the positive and negative cross talk of other defense signaling pathways that we may not have addressed in this study. Our study suggests that endophytic colonization by M. robertsii may have increased growth of maize plants by induction of gibberellins. However, infection by C. heterostrophus may have had an adverse effect on growth if we had extended the time between inoculation of plants with C. heterostrophus and termination of the experiment. Our study suggests a potential mechanism of suppression of SCLB by endophytic M. robertsii in maize is through induction of greater SA content compared to non-inoculated control plants. It highlights the direct or indirect mechanistic effects of endophytic M. robertsii on the modulation of pathogenesis- and growth-related phytohormones and expression of genes in plants subsequently infected with the phytopathogen, C. heterostrophus.

Several challenges remain to be explored before endophytic insect pathogens, such as Metarhizium spp., can be predictably exploited in the field for pest management. For example, information critical for the deployment of this approach, such as the variability of ecological competency among species and isolates of Metarhizium in agricultural soils, the prevalence and persistence of natural and managed endophytic colonization, and mechanisms of action of plant-growth promoting and disease suppressive effects of endophytic Metarhizium spp. remain to be better understood.

Conclusion

To conclude, through seed inoculation we established endophytic colonization of maize root and foliar tissue by M. robertsii that resulted in plant growth promotion, SCLB disease suppression and changes in phytohormone content and defense gene expression.

Supporting information

S1 Table. Gene sequences of the primers used for qRT-PCR for maize.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0272944.s001

(DOCX)

Acknowledgments

We thank C. Voortman for technical support and numerous undergraduate lab assistants for their help with data collection.

References

1. Rivero RM, Mittler R, Blumwald E, Zandalinas SI. Developing climate-resilient crops: improving plant tolerance to stress combination. Plant J. 2022;109: 373–389. pmid:34482588
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
2. Peng Y, Li SJ, Yan J, Tang Y, Cheng JP, Gao AJ, et al. Research progress on phytopathogenic fungi and their role as biocontrol agents. Front Microbiol. 2021;12: 670135. pmid:34122383
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
3. Ray S, Alves PCMS, Ahmad I, Gaffoor I, Acevedo FE, Peiffer M, et al. Turnabout Is fair play: Herbivory-induced plant chitinases excreted in fall armyworm frass suppress herbivore defenses in maize. Plant Physiol. 2016;171: 694–706. pmid:26979328
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
4. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Luthe DS, Shakeel SN, Barbercheck ME. Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii promotes maize growth, suppresses insect growth, and alters plant defense gene expression. Biol Control. 2020;144: 104167.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
5. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Barbercheck ME. The role of endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi in biotic stress management. Plant Stress Biology. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2020. pp. 379–400.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
6. Ahmad I, Zaib S, Alves PCMS, Luthe DS, Bano A, Shakeel SN. Molecular and physiological analysis of drought stress responses in Zea mays treated with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Biol Plant. 2019;63: 536–547.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
7. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Luthe DS, Barbercheck ME. Systemic colonization by Metarhizium robertsii enhances cover crop growth. J Fungi. 2020;6: 64. pmid:32429548
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
8. Zaib S, Ahmad I, Shakeel SN. Modulation of barley (Hordeum vulgare) defense and hormonal pathways by Pseudomonas species accounted for salinity tolerance. Pakistan J Agric Sci. 2020;57: 1469–1481.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
9. Singh LP, Gill SS, Tuteja N. Unraveling the role of fungal symbionts in plant abiotic stress tolerance. Plant Signal Behav. 2011;6: 175–191. pmid:21512319
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
10. Ahmad I, Zaib S. Mighty microbes: Plant growth promoting microbes in soil health and sustainable agriculture. Springer, Cham; 2020. pp. 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44364-1_14
11. Bakker PAHM, Pieterse CMJ, de Jonge R, Berendsen RL. The soil-borne legacy. Cell. 2018;172: 1178–1180. pmid:29522740
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
12. Oyserman BO, Medema MH, Raaijmakers JM. Road MAPs to engineer host microbiomes. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018;43: 46–54. pmid:29207308
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
13. Hong M, Peng G, Keyhani NO, Xia Y. Application of the entomogenous fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, for leafroller (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) control and its effect on rice phyllosphere microbial diversity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101: 6793–6807. pmid:28695229
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
14. Van Der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, Van Straalen NM. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2008;11: 296–310. pmid:18047587
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
15. Vega FE. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: a review. Mycologia. 2018;110: 4–30. pmid:29863999
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
16. Behie SW, Zelisko PM, Bidochka MJ. Endophytic insect-parasitic fungi translocate nitrogen directly from insects to plants. Science (80-). 2012;336: 1576–1577. pmid:22723421
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
17. Behie SW, Moreira CC, Sementchoukova I, Barelli L, Zelisko PM, Bidochka MJ. Carbon translocation from a plant to an insect-pathogenic endophytic fungus. Nat Commun. 2017;8: 1–5. pmid:28098142
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
18. Pava-Ripoll M, Angelini C, Fang W, Wang S, Posada FJ, St Leger RJ. The rhizosphere-competent entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae expresses a specific subset of genes in plant root exudates. Microbiology. 2011;157: 47–55.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
19. Hu S, Bidochka MJ. Abscisic acid implicated in differential plant responses of Phaseolus vulgaris during endophytic colonization by Metarhizium and pathogenic colonization by Fusarium. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 11327. pmid:34059713
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
20. Jaber LR, Enkerli J. Fungal entomopathogens as endophytes: Can they promote plant growth? Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2017;27: 28–41.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
21. Jaber LR. Grapevine leaf tissue colonization by the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana s.l. and its effect against downy mildew. BioControl. 2015;60: 103–112.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
22. Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. Antagonism of the endophytic insect pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii against the bean plant pathogen Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli. Can J Plant Pathol. 2013;35: 288–293.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
23. Batta YA. Efficacy of endophytic and applied Metarhizium anisopliae (Metch.) Sorokin (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) against larvae of Plutella xylostella L. (Yponomeutidae: Lepidoptera) infesting Brassica napus plants. Crop Prot. 2013;44: 128–134.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
24. Lopez DC, Sword GA. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea). Biol Control. 2015;89: 53–60.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
25. Cloutier ML, Murrell E, Barbercheck M, Kaye J, Finney D, García-González I, et al. fungal community shifts in soils with varied cover crop treatments and edaphic properties. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 6198. pmid:32277120
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
26. Meyling N V., Eilenberg J. Ecology of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in temperate agroecosystems: Potential for conservation biological control. Biol Control. 2007;43: 145–155.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
27. Randhawa PK, Mullen C, Barbercheck M. Plant identity, but not diversity, and agroecosystem characteristics affect the occurrence of M. robertsii in an organic cropping system. Biol Control. 2018;124: 18–29.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
28. Steinwender BM, Enkerli J, Widmer F, Eilenberg J, Meyling N V. Molecular diversity of the Metarhizium anisopliae lineage in an agricultural field. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2011;66: 113–115.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
29. Tiago PV, Oliveira NT de, Lima EÁ de LA. Biological insect control using Metarhizium anisopliae: morphological, molecular, and ecological aspects. Ciência Rural. 2014;44: 645–651.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
30. Wyrebek M, Huber C, Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. Three sympatrically occurring species of Metarhizium show plant rhizosphere specificity. Microbiology. 2011;157: 2904–2911.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
31. Fisher JJ, Rehner SA, Bruck DJ. Diversity of rhizosphere associated entomopathogenic fungi of perennial herbs, shrubs and coniferous trees. J Invertebr Pathol. 2011;106: 289–295. pmid:21056569
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
32. Akello J, Sikora R. Systemic acropedal influence of endophyte seed treatment on Acyrthosiphon pisum and Aphis fabae offspring development and reproductive fitness. Biol Control. 2012;61: 215–221.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
33. Behie SW, Jones SJ, Bidochka MJ. Plant tissue localization of the endophytic insect pathogenic fungi Metarhizium and Beauveria. Fungal Ecol. 2015;13: 112–119.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
34. García EJ, Posadas BJ, Perticari A, Lecuona RE. Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin promotes growth and has endophytic activity in tomato plants. Adv Biol Res (Rennes). 2011;5: 22–27.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
35. Greenfield M, Gómez-Jiménez MI, Ortiz V, Vega FE, Kramer M, Parsa S. Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae endophytically colonize cassava roots following soil drench inoculation. Biol Control. 2016;95: 40–48. pmid:27103778
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
36. Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. The insect-pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii (Clavicipitaceae) is also an endophyte that stimulates plant root development. Am J Bot. 2012;99: 101–107. pmid:22174335
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
37. Liao X, O’Brien TR, Fang W, St. Leger RJ. The plant beneficial effects of Metarhizium species correlate with their association with roots. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98: 7089–7096. pmid:24805846
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
38. Flonc B, Barbercheck M, Ahmad I. Observations on the relationships between endophytic Metarhizium robertsii, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and maize. Pathogens. 2021;10: 713. pmid:34200234
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
39. Russo ML, Pelizza SA, Vianna MF, Allegrucci N, Cabello MN, Toledo A V., et al. Effect of endophytic entomopathogenic fungi on soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr. growth and yield. J King Saud Univ—Sci. 2018;31: 728–736.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
40. Liu SF, Wang GJ, Nong XQ, Liu B, Wang MM, Li SL, et al. Entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae promotes the early development of peanut root. Plant Prot Sci. 2017;53: 101–107.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
41. Krell V, Jakobs-Schoenwandt D, Vidal S, Patel A V. Encapsulation of Metarhizium brunneum enhances endophytism in tomato plants. Biol Control. 2018;116: 62–73.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
42. Jaber LR, Alananbeh KM. Fungal entomopathogens as endophytes reduce several species of Fusarium causing crown and root rot in sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Biol Control. 2018;126: 117–126.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
43. Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: A meta-analysis. Ecology. 2009;90: 2088–2097. pmid:19739371
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
44. Pineda A, Dicke M, Pieterse CM, Pozo MJ. Beneficial microbes in a changing environment: are they always helping plants to deal with insects? Funct Ecol. 2013;27: 574–586.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
45. De Vos M, Van Oosten VR, Van Poecke RMP, Pelt JA Van, Pozo MJ, Mueller MJ, et al. Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack. / 923 MPMI. 2005;18: 923–937.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
46. Glazebrook J. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43: 205–227. pmid:16078883
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
47. Pieterse CMJ, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SCM. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28: 489–521. pmid:22559264
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
48. Pieterse CMJ, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, Weller DM, Van Wees SCM, Bakker PAHM. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2014;52: 347–375.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
49. Karasov TL, Chae E, Herman JJ, Bergelson J. Mechanisms to mitigate the trade-off between growth and defense. Plant Cell. 2017;29: 666–680. pmid:28320784
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
50. Thaler JS, Humphrey PT, Whiteman NK. Evolution of jasmonate and salicylate signal crosstalk. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17: 260–270. pmid:22498450
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
51. Dupont P, Eaton CJ, Wargent JJ, Fechtner S, Solomon P, Schmid J, et al. Fungal endophyte infection of ryegrass reprograms host metabolism and alters development. New Phytol. 2015;208: 1227–1240. pmid:26305687
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
52. Dinkins RD, Nagabhyru P, Graham MA, Boykin D, Schardl CL. Transcriptome response of Lolium arundinaceum to its fungal endophyte Epichloë coenophiala. New Phytol. 2017;213: 324–337. pmid:27477008
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
53. Schmid J, Day R, Zhang N, Dupont P-Y, Cox MP, Schardl CL, et al. Host tissue environment directs activities of an Epichloë endophyte, while it induces systemic hormone and defense responses in its native perennial ryegrass host. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2017;30: 138–149. pmid:28027026
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
54. Rivas-Franco F, Hampton JG, Narciso J, Rostás M, Wessman P, Saville DJ, et al. Effects of a maize root pest and fungal pathogen on entomopathogenic fungal rhizosphere colonization, endophytism and induction of plant hormones. Biol Control. 2020;150: 104347.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
55. Acevedo FE, Rivera-Vega LJ, Chung SH, Ray S, Felton GW. Cues from chewing insects—the intersection of DAMPs, HAMPs, MAMPs and effectors. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015;26: 80–86. pmid:26123394
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
56. Boller T, Felix G. A renaissance of elicitors: perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2009;60: 379–406. pmid:19400727
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
57. Zipfel C. Early molecular events in PAMP-triggered immunity. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009;12: 414–420. pmid:19608450
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
58. Conrath U. Molecular aspects of defence priming. Trends Plant Sci. 2011;16: 524–531. pmid:21782492
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
59. Conrath U, Beckers GJM, Langenbach CJG, Jaskiewicz MR. Priming for enhanced defense. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2015;53: 97–119. pmid:26070330
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
60. Hilker M, Fatouros NE. Plant responses to insect egg deposition. Annu Rev Entomol. 2015;60: 493–515. pmid:25341089
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
61. Chen K, Li G-J, Bressan RA, Song C-P, Zhu J-K, Zhao Y. Abscisic acid dynamics, signaling, and functions in plants. J Integr Plant Biol. 2019;62: 25–54. pmid:31850654
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
62. Khan AL, Hamayun M, Khan SA, Kang SM, Shinwari ZK, Kamran M, et al. Pure culture of Metarhizium anisopliae LHL07 reprograms soybean to higher growth and mitigates salt stress. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28: 1483–1494. pmid:22805930
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
63. Hernández-García J, Briones-Moreno A, Blázquez MA. Origin and evolution of gibberellin signaling and metabolism in plants. Seminars in cell & developmental biology. Elsevier; 2021. pp. 46–54. pmid:32414681
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
64. Bahadur Singh N, Singh A, Khare S, Yadav V, Bano C, Kumar Yadav R. Mitigating strategies of gibberellins in various environmental cues and their crosstalk with other hormonal pathways in plants: a review. Plant Mol Biol Report. 2021;39: 34–49.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
65. Shu K, Chen Q, Wu Y, Liu R, Zhang H, Wang P, et al. ABI4 mediates antagonistic effects of abscisic acid and gibberellins at transcript and protein levels. Plant J. 2016;85: 348–361. pmid:26708041
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
66. Wang M, Ma J, Fan L, Fu K, Yu C, Gao J, et al. Biological control of southern corn leaf blight by Trichoderma atroviride SG3403. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2015;25: 1133–1146.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
67. Jaber LR, Ownley BH. Can we use entomopathogenic fungi as endophytes for dual biological control of insect pests and plant pathogens? Biol Control. 2018;116: 36–45.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
68. Parsa S, Ortiz V, Vega FE. Establishing fungal entomopathogens as endophytes: Towards endophytic biological control. J Vis Exp. 2013;74. pmid:23603853
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
69. Zimmermann G. The ‘Galleria bait method’ for detection of entomopathogenic fungi in soil. J Appl Entomol. 1986;102: 213–215.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
70. Fernandes ÉKK, Keyser CA, Rangel DEN, Foster RN, Roberts DW. CTC medium: A novel dodine-free selective medium for isolating entomopathogenic fungi, especially Metarhizium acridum, from soil. Biol Control. 2010;54: 197–205.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
71. Bischoff JF, Rehner SA, Humber RA. A multilocus phylogeny of the Metarhizium anisopliae lineage. Mycologia. 2009;101: 512–530. pmid:19623931
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
72. Kepler RM, Ugine TA, Maul JE, Cavigelli MA, Rehner SA. Community composition and population genetics of insect pathogenic fungi in the genus Metarhizium from soils of a long-term agricultural research system. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17: 2791–2804. pmid:25627647
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
73. Pride L, Gary V, Agehara S. How to Measure Leaf Disease Damage Using Image Analysis in ImageJ. Univ Florida/IFAS Ext. 2020.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
74. Ives AR. For testing the significance of regression coefficients, go ahead and log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6: 828–835.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
75. Sergaki C, Lagunas B, Lidbury I, Gifford ML, Schäfer P. Challenges and approaches in microbiome research: From fundamental to applied. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 1205. pmid:30174681
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
76. Jaber LR, Enkerli J. Effect of seed treatment duration on growth and colonization of Vicia faba by endophytic Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium brunneum. Biol Control. 2016;103: 187–195.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
77. Dutta P, Kaushik H, Bhawmick P, Puzari KC, Hazarika GN. Metarhizium anisopliae as endophyte has the ability of plant growth enhancement. Int J Curr Res. 2015;7: 14300–14304.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
78. Golo PS, Gardner DR, Grilley MM, Takemoto JY, Krasnoff SB, Pires MS, et al. Production of destruxins from Metarhizium spp. fungi in artificial medium and in endophytically colonized cowpea plants. PLoS One. 2014;9: e104946. pmid:25127450
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
79. Kaushik H, Dutta P. Establishment of Metarhizium anisopliae, an entomopathogen as endophyte for biological control in tea. Res Crop. 2016.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
80. Mantzoukas S, Chondrogiannis C, Grammatikopoulos G. Effects of three endophytic entomopathogens on sweet sorghum and on the larvae of the stalk borer Sesamia nonagrioides. Entomol Exp Appl. 2015;154: 78–87.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
81. Barna B, Fodor J, Harrach BD, Pogány M, Király Z. The Janus face of reactive oxygen species in resistance and susceptibility of plants to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2012;59: 37–43. pmid:22321616
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
82. Deboever E, Deleu M, Mongrand S, Lins L, Fauconnier M-L. Plant–pathogen interactions: underestimated roles of phyto-oxylipins. Trends Plant Sci. 2020;25: 22–34. pmid:31668451
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
83. Pangesti N, Pineda A, Pieterse CMJ, Dicke M, Van Loon JJA, Pozo MJ, et al. Two-way plant-mediated interactions between root-associated microbes and insects: from ecology to mechanisms. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4: 1–11. pmid:24167508
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
84. Züst T, Agrawal AA. Trade-offs between plant growth and defense against insect herbivory: an emerging mechanistic synthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2017;68: 513–534. pmid:28142282
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
85. Tzin V, Hojo Y, Strickler SR, Bartsch LJ, Archer CM, Ahern KR, et al. Rapid defense responses in maize leaves induced by Spodoptera exigua caterpillar feeding. J Exp Bot. 2017;68: 4709–4723. pmid:28981781
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
86. Robert-Seilaniantz A, Grant M, Jones JDG. Hormone crosstalk in plant disease and defense: more than just jasmonate-salicylate antagonism. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2011;49: 317–343. pmid:21663438
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
87. Gao FK, Dai CC, Liu XZ. Mechanisms of fungal endophytes in plant protection against pathogens. African J Microbiol Res. 2010;4: 1346–1351.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
88. Yang Y-X J Ahammed G, Wu C, Fan S, Zhou Y-H. Crosstalk among jasmonate, salicylate and ethylene signaling pathways in plant disease and immune responses. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2015;16: 450–461.
- View Article
- Google Scholar
89. Schäfer M, Brütting C, Meza-Canales ID, Großkinsky DK, Vankova R, Baldwin IT, et al. The role of cis-zeatin-type cytokinins in plant growth regulation and mediating responses to environmental interactions. J Exp Bot. 2015;66: 4873–4884. pmid:25998904
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
90. Großkinsky D, Edelsbrunner K, Pfeifhofer H, Van der Graaff E, Roitsch T. Cis-and trans-zeatin differentially modulate plant immunity. Plant Signal Behav. 2013;8: e24798. pmid:23656869
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
91. Liao X, Lovett B, Fang W, St Leger RJ. Metarhizium robertsii produces indole-3-acetic acid, which promotes root growth in Arabidopsis and enhances virulence to insects. Microbiology. 2017;163: 980–991. pmid:28708056
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
92. Waqas M, Khan AL, Kamran M, Hamayun M, Kang S-M, Kim Y-H, et al. Endophytic fungi produce gibberellins and indoleacetic acid and promotes host-plant growth during stress. Molecules. 2012;17: 10754–10773. pmid:22960869
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
93. Van Wees SCM, Van der Ent S, Pieterse CMJ. Plant immune responses triggered by beneficial microbes. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2008;11: 443–448. pmid:18585955
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
94. Jung HW, Tschaplinski TJ, Wang L, Glazebrook J, Greenberg JT. Priming in systemic plant immunity. Science (80-). 2009;324: 89–91. pmid:19342588
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
95. Pozo MJ, López‐Ráez JA, Azcón‐Aguilar C, García‐Garrido JM. Phytohormones as integrators of environmental signals in the regulation of mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phytol. 2015;205: 1431–1436. pmid:25580981
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
96. Van der Ent S, Van Wees SCM, Pieterse CMJ. Jasmonate signaling in plant interactions with resistance-inducing beneficial microbes. Phytochemistry. 2009;70: 1581–1588. pmid:19712950
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar
97. Gutjahr C. Phytohormone signaling in arbuscular mycorhiza development. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;20: 26–34. pmid:24853646
- View Article
- PubMed/NCBI
- Google Scholar

[ref1] 1. Rivero RM, Mittler R, Blumwald E, Zandalinas SI. Developing climate-resilient crops: improving plant tolerance to stress combination. Plant J. 2022;109: 373–389. pmid:34482588
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[2] View Article

[3] PubMed/NCBI

[4] Google Scholar

[ref2] 2. Peng Y, Li SJ, Yan J, Tang Y, Cheng JP, Gao AJ, et al. Research progress on phytopathogenic fungi and their role as biocontrol agents. Front Microbiol. 2021;12: 670135. pmid:34122383
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[6] View Article

[7] PubMed/NCBI

[8] Google Scholar

[ref3] 3. Ray S, Alves PCMS, Ahmad I, Gaffoor I, Acevedo FE, Peiffer M, et al. Turnabout Is fair play: Herbivory-induced plant chitinases excreted in fall armyworm frass suppress herbivore defenses in maize. Plant Physiol. 2016;171: 694–706. pmid:26979328
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[10] View Article

[11] PubMed/NCBI

[12] Google Scholar

[ref4] 4. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Luthe DS, Shakeel SN, Barbercheck ME. Endophytic Metarhizium robertsii promotes maize growth, suppresses insect growth, and alters plant defense gene expression. Biol Control. 2020;144: 104167.
View Article
Google Scholar

[14] View Article

[15] Google Scholar

[ref5] 5. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Barbercheck ME. The role of endophytic insect-pathogenic fungi in biotic stress management. Plant Stress Biology. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2020. pp. 379–400.
View Article
Google Scholar

[17] View Article

[18] Google Scholar

[ref6] 6. Ahmad I, Zaib S, Alves PCMS, Luthe DS, Bano A, Shakeel SN. Molecular and physiological analysis of drought stress responses in Zea mays treated with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria. Biol Plant. 2019;63: 536–547.
View Article
Google Scholar

[20] View Article

[21] Google Scholar

[ref7] 7. Ahmad I, Jiménez-Gasco M del M, Luthe DS, Barbercheck ME. Systemic colonization by Metarhizium robertsii enhances cover crop growth. J Fungi. 2020;6: 64. pmid:32429548
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[23] View Article

[24] PubMed/NCBI

[25] Google Scholar

[ref8] 8. Zaib S, Ahmad I, Shakeel SN. Modulation of barley (Hordeum vulgare) defense and hormonal pathways by Pseudomonas species accounted for salinity tolerance. Pakistan J Agric Sci. 2020;57: 1469–1481.
View Article
Google Scholar

[27] View Article

[28] Google Scholar

[ref9] 9. Singh LP, Gill SS, Tuteja N. Unraveling the role of fungal symbionts in plant abiotic stress tolerance. Plant Signal Behav. 2011;6: 175–191. pmid:21512319
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[30] View Article

[31] PubMed/NCBI

[32] Google Scholar

[ref10] 10. Ahmad I, Zaib S. Mighty microbes: Plant growth promoting microbes in soil health and sustainable agriculture. Springer, Cham; 2020. pp. 243–264. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-44364-1_14

[ref11] 11. Bakker PAHM, Pieterse CMJ, de Jonge R, Berendsen RL. The soil-borne legacy. Cell. 2018;172: 1178–1180. pmid:29522740
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[35] View Article

[36] PubMed/NCBI

[37] Google Scholar

[ref12] 12. Oyserman BO, Medema MH, Raaijmakers JM. Road MAPs to engineer host microbiomes. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2018;43: 46–54. pmid:29207308
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[39] View Article

[40] PubMed/NCBI

[41] Google Scholar

[ref13] 13. Hong M, Peng G, Keyhani NO, Xia Y. Application of the entomogenous fungus, Metarhizium anisopliae, for leafroller (Cnaphalocrocis medinalis) control and its effect on rice phyllosphere microbial diversity. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2017;101: 6793–6807. pmid:28695229
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[43] View Article

[44] PubMed/NCBI

[45] Google Scholar

[ref14] 14. Van Der Heijden MGA, Bardgett RD, Van Straalen NM. The unseen majority: Soil microbes as drivers of plant diversity and productivity in terrestrial ecosystems. Ecol Lett. 2008;11: 296–310. pmid:18047587
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[47] View Article

[48] PubMed/NCBI

[49] Google Scholar

[ref15] 15. Vega FE. The use of fungal entomopathogens as endophytes in biological control: a review. Mycologia. 2018;110: 4–30. pmid:29863999
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[51] View Article

[52] PubMed/NCBI

[53] Google Scholar

[ref16] 16. Behie SW, Zelisko PM, Bidochka MJ. Endophytic insect-parasitic fungi translocate nitrogen directly from insects to plants. Science (80-). 2012;336: 1576–1577. pmid:22723421
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[55] View Article

[56] PubMed/NCBI

[57] Google Scholar

[ref17] 17. Behie SW, Moreira CC, Sementchoukova I, Barelli L, Zelisko PM, Bidochka MJ. Carbon translocation from a plant to an insect-pathogenic endophytic fungus. Nat Commun. 2017;8: 1–5. pmid:28098142
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[59] View Article

[60] PubMed/NCBI

[61] Google Scholar

[ref18] 18. Pava-Ripoll M, Angelini C, Fang W, Wang S, Posada FJ, St Leger RJ. The rhizosphere-competent entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae expresses a specific subset of genes in plant root exudates. Microbiology. 2011;157: 47–55.
View Article
Google Scholar

[63] View Article

[64] Google Scholar

[ref19] 19. Hu S, Bidochka MJ. Abscisic acid implicated in differential plant responses of Phaseolus vulgaris during endophytic colonization by Metarhizium and pathogenic colonization by Fusarium. Sci Rep. 2021;11: 11327. pmid:34059713
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[66] View Article

[67] PubMed/NCBI

[68] Google Scholar

[ref20] 20. Jaber LR, Enkerli J. Fungal entomopathogens as endophytes: Can they promote plant growth? Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2017;27: 28–41.
View Article
Google Scholar

[70] View Article

[71] Google Scholar

[ref21] 21. Jaber LR. Grapevine leaf tissue colonization by the fungal entomopathogen Beauveria bassiana s.l. and its effect against downy mildew. BioControl. 2015;60: 103–112.
View Article
Google Scholar

[73] View Article

[74] Google Scholar

[ref22] 22. Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. Antagonism of the endophytic insect pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii against the bean plant pathogen Fusarium solani f. sp. phaseoli. Can J Plant Pathol. 2013;35: 288–293.
View Article
Google Scholar

[76] View Article

[77] Google Scholar

[ref23] 23. Batta YA. Efficacy of endophytic and applied Metarhizium anisopliae (Metch.) Sorokin (Ascomycota: Hypocreales) against larvae of Plutella xylostella L. (Yponomeutidae: Lepidoptera) infesting Brassica napus plants. Crop Prot. 2013;44: 128–134.
View Article
Google Scholar

[79] View Article

[80] Google Scholar

[ref24] 24. Lopez DC, Sword GA. The endophytic fungal entomopathogens Beauveria bassiana and Purpureocillium lilacinum enhance the growth of cultivated cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) and negatively affect survival of the cotton bollworm (Helicoverpa zea). Biol Control. 2015;89: 53–60.
View Article
Google Scholar

[82] View Article

[83] Google Scholar

[ref25] 25. Cloutier ML, Murrell E, Barbercheck M, Kaye J, Finney D, García-González I, et al. fungal community shifts in soils with varied cover crop treatments and edaphic properties. Sci Rep. 2020;10: 6198. pmid:32277120
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[85] View Article

[86] PubMed/NCBI

[87] Google Scholar

[ref26] 26. Meyling N V., Eilenberg J. Ecology of the entomopathogenic fungi Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae in temperate agroecosystems: Potential for conservation biological control. Biol Control. 2007;43: 145–155.
View Article
Google Scholar

[89] View Article

[90] Google Scholar

[ref27] 27. Randhawa PK, Mullen C, Barbercheck M. Plant identity, but not diversity, and agroecosystem characteristics affect the occurrence of M. robertsii in an organic cropping system. Biol Control. 2018;124: 18–29.
View Article
Google Scholar

[92] View Article

[93] Google Scholar

[ref28] 28. Steinwender BM, Enkerli J, Widmer F, Eilenberg J, Meyling N V. Molecular diversity of the Metarhizium anisopliae lineage in an agricultural field. IOBC/WPRS Bull. 2011;66: 113–115.
View Article
Google Scholar

[95] View Article

[96] Google Scholar

[ref29] 29. Tiago PV, Oliveira NT de, Lima EÁ de LA. Biological insect control using Metarhizium anisopliae: morphological, molecular, and ecological aspects. Ciência Rural. 2014;44: 645–651.
View Article
Google Scholar

[98] View Article

[99] Google Scholar

[ref30] 30. Wyrebek M, Huber C, Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. Three sympatrically occurring species of Metarhizium show plant rhizosphere specificity. Microbiology. 2011;157: 2904–2911.
View Article
Google Scholar

[101] View Article

[102] Google Scholar

[ref31] 31. Fisher JJ, Rehner SA, Bruck DJ. Diversity of rhizosphere associated entomopathogenic fungi of perennial herbs, shrubs and coniferous trees. J Invertebr Pathol. 2011;106: 289–295. pmid:21056569
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[104] View Article

[105] PubMed/NCBI

[106] Google Scholar

[ref32] 32. Akello J, Sikora R. Systemic acropedal influence of endophyte seed treatment on Acyrthosiphon pisum and Aphis fabae offspring development and reproductive fitness. Biol Control. 2012;61: 215–221.
View Article
Google Scholar

[108] View Article

[109] Google Scholar

[ref33] 33. Behie SW, Jones SJ, Bidochka MJ. Plant tissue localization of the endophytic insect pathogenic fungi Metarhizium and Beauveria. Fungal Ecol. 2015;13: 112–119.
View Article
Google Scholar

[111] View Article

[112] Google Scholar

[ref34] 34. García EJ, Posadas BJ, Perticari A, Lecuona RE. Metarhizium anisopliae (Metschnikoff) Sorokin promotes growth and has endophytic activity in tomato plants. Adv Biol Res (Rennes). 2011;5: 22–27.
View Article
Google Scholar

[114] View Article

[115] Google Scholar

[ref35] 35. Greenfield M, Gómez-Jiménez MI, Ortiz V, Vega FE, Kramer M, Parsa S. Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium anisopliae endophytically colonize cassava roots following soil drench inoculation. Biol Control. 2016;95: 40–48. pmid:27103778
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[117] View Article

[118] PubMed/NCBI

[119] Google Scholar

[ref36] 36. Sasan RK, Bidochka MJ. The insect-pathogenic fungus Metarhizium robertsii (Clavicipitaceae) is also an endophyte that stimulates plant root development. Am J Bot. 2012;99: 101–107. pmid:22174335
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[121] View Article

[122] PubMed/NCBI

[123] Google Scholar

[ref37] 37. Liao X, O’Brien TR, Fang W, St. Leger RJ. The plant beneficial effects of Metarhizium species correlate with their association with roots. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 2014;98: 7089–7096. pmid:24805846
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[125] View Article

[126] PubMed/NCBI

[127] Google Scholar

[ref38] 38. Flonc B, Barbercheck M, Ahmad I. Observations on the relationships between endophytic Metarhizium robertsii, Spodoptera frugiperda (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae), and maize. Pathogens. 2021;10: 713. pmid:34200234
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[129] View Article

[130] PubMed/NCBI

[131] Google Scholar

[ref39] 39. Russo ML, Pelizza SA, Vianna MF, Allegrucci N, Cabello MN, Toledo A V., et al. Effect of endophytic entomopathogenic fungi on soybean Glycine max (L.) Merr. growth and yield. J King Saud Univ—Sci. 2018;31: 728–736.
View Article
Google Scholar

[133] View Article

[134] Google Scholar

[ref40] 40. Liu SF, Wang GJ, Nong XQ, Liu B, Wang MM, Li SL, et al. Entomopathogen Metarhizium anisopliae promotes the early development of peanut root. Plant Prot Sci. 2017;53: 101–107.
View Article
Google Scholar

[136] View Article

[137] Google Scholar

[ref41] 41. Krell V, Jakobs-Schoenwandt D, Vidal S, Patel A V. Encapsulation of Metarhizium brunneum enhances endophytism in tomato plants. Biol Control. 2018;116: 62–73.
View Article
Google Scholar

[139] View Article

[140] Google Scholar

[ref42] 42. Jaber LR, Alananbeh KM. Fungal entomopathogens as endophytes reduce several species of Fusarium causing crown and root rot in sweet pepper (Capsicum annuum L.). Biol Control. 2018;126: 117–126.
View Article
Google Scholar

[142] View Article

[143] Google Scholar

[ref43] 43. Koricheva J, Gange AC, Jones T. Effects of mycorrhizal fungi on insect herbivores: A meta-analysis. Ecology. 2009;90: 2088–2097. pmid:19739371
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[145] View Article

[146] PubMed/NCBI

[147] Google Scholar

[ref44] 44. Pineda A, Dicke M, Pieterse CM, Pozo MJ. Beneficial microbes in a changing environment: are they always helping plants to deal with insects? Funct Ecol. 2013;27: 574–586.
View Article
Google Scholar

[149] View Article

[150] Google Scholar

[ref45] 45. De Vos M, Van Oosten VR, Van Poecke RMP, Pelt JA Van, Pozo MJ, Mueller MJ, et al. Signal signature and transcriptome changes of Arabidopsis during pathogen and insect attack. / 923 MPMI. 2005;18: 923–937.
View Article
Google Scholar

[152] View Article

[153] Google Scholar

[ref46] 46. Glazebrook J. Contrasting mechanisms of defense against biotrophic and necrotrophic pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2005;43: 205–227. pmid:16078883
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[155] View Article

[156] PubMed/NCBI

[157] Google Scholar

[ref47] 47. Pieterse CMJ, Van der Does D, Zamioudis C, Leon-Reyes A, Van Wees SCM. Hormonal modulation of plant immunity. Annu Rev Cell Dev Biol. 2012;28: 489–521. pmid:22559264
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[159] View Article

[160] PubMed/NCBI

[161] Google Scholar

[ref48] 48. Pieterse CMJ, Zamioudis C, Berendsen RL, Weller DM, Van Wees SCM, Bakker PAHM. Induced systemic resistance by beneficial microbes. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2014;52: 347–375.
View Article
Google Scholar

[163] View Article

[164] Google Scholar

[ref49] 49. Karasov TL, Chae E, Herman JJ, Bergelson J. Mechanisms to mitigate the trade-off between growth and defense. Plant Cell. 2017;29: 666–680. pmid:28320784
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[166] View Article

[167] PubMed/NCBI

[168] Google Scholar

[ref50] 50. Thaler JS, Humphrey PT, Whiteman NK. Evolution of jasmonate and salicylate signal crosstalk. Trends Plant Sci. 2012;17: 260–270. pmid:22498450
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[170] View Article

[171] PubMed/NCBI

[172] Google Scholar

[ref51] 51. Dupont P, Eaton CJ, Wargent JJ, Fechtner S, Solomon P, Schmid J, et al. Fungal endophyte infection of ryegrass reprograms host metabolism and alters development. New Phytol. 2015;208: 1227–1240. pmid:26305687
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[174] View Article

[175] PubMed/NCBI

[176] Google Scholar

[ref52] 52. Dinkins RD, Nagabhyru P, Graham MA, Boykin D, Schardl CL. Transcriptome response of Lolium arundinaceum to its fungal endophyte Epichloë coenophiala. New Phytol. 2017;213: 324–337. pmid:27477008
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[178] View Article

[179] PubMed/NCBI

[180] Google Scholar

[ref53] 53. Schmid J, Day R, Zhang N, Dupont P-Y, Cox MP, Schardl CL, et al. Host tissue environment directs activities of an Epichloë endophyte, while it induces systemic hormone and defense responses in its native perennial ryegrass host. Mol Plant-Microbe Interact. 2017;30: 138–149. pmid:28027026
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[182] View Article

[183] PubMed/NCBI

[184] Google Scholar

[ref54] 54. Rivas-Franco F, Hampton JG, Narciso J, Rostás M, Wessman P, Saville DJ, et al. Effects of a maize root pest and fungal pathogen on entomopathogenic fungal rhizosphere colonization, endophytism and induction of plant hormones. Biol Control. 2020;150: 104347.
View Article
Google Scholar

[186] View Article

[187] Google Scholar

[ref55] 55. Acevedo FE, Rivera-Vega LJ, Chung SH, Ray S, Felton GW. Cues from chewing insects—the intersection of DAMPs, HAMPs, MAMPs and effectors. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015;26: 80–86. pmid:26123394
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[189] View Article

[190] PubMed/NCBI

[191] Google Scholar

[ref56] 56. Boller T, Felix G. A renaissance of elicitors: perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2009;60: 379–406. pmid:19400727
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[193] View Article

[194] PubMed/NCBI

[195] Google Scholar

[ref57] 57. Zipfel C. Early molecular events in PAMP-triggered immunity. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2009;12: 414–420. pmid:19608450
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[197] View Article

[198] PubMed/NCBI

[199] Google Scholar

[ref58] 58. Conrath U. Molecular aspects of defence priming. Trends Plant Sci. 2011;16: 524–531. pmid:21782492
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[201] View Article

[202] PubMed/NCBI

[203] Google Scholar

[ref59] 59. Conrath U, Beckers GJM, Langenbach CJG, Jaskiewicz MR. Priming for enhanced defense. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2015;53: 97–119. pmid:26070330
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[205] View Article

[206] PubMed/NCBI

[207] Google Scholar

[ref60] 60. Hilker M, Fatouros NE. Plant responses to insect egg deposition. Annu Rev Entomol. 2015;60: 493–515. pmid:25341089
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[209] View Article

[210] PubMed/NCBI

[211] Google Scholar

[ref61] 61. Chen K, Li G-J, Bressan RA, Song C-P, Zhu J-K, Zhao Y. Abscisic acid dynamics, signaling, and functions in plants. J Integr Plant Biol. 2019;62: 25–54. pmid:31850654
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[213] View Article

[214] PubMed/NCBI

[215] Google Scholar

[ref62] 62. Khan AL, Hamayun M, Khan SA, Kang SM, Shinwari ZK, Kamran M, et al. Pure culture of Metarhizium anisopliae LHL07 reprograms soybean to higher growth and mitigates salt stress. World J Microbiol Biotechnol. 2012;28: 1483–1494. pmid:22805930
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[217] View Article

[218] PubMed/NCBI

[219] Google Scholar

[ref63] 63. Hernández-García J, Briones-Moreno A, Blázquez MA. Origin and evolution of gibberellin signaling and metabolism in plants. Seminars in cell & developmental biology. Elsevier; 2021. pp. 46–54. pmid:32414681
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[221] View Article

[222] PubMed/NCBI

[223] Google Scholar

[ref64] 64. Bahadur Singh N, Singh A, Khare S, Yadav V, Bano C, Kumar Yadav R. Mitigating strategies of gibberellins in various environmental cues and their crosstalk with other hormonal pathways in plants: a review. Plant Mol Biol Report. 2021;39: 34–49.
View Article
Google Scholar

[225] View Article

[226] Google Scholar

[ref65] 65. Shu K, Chen Q, Wu Y, Liu R, Zhang H, Wang P, et al. ABI4 mediates antagonistic effects of abscisic acid and gibberellins at transcript and protein levels. Plant J. 2016;85: 348–361. pmid:26708041
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[228] View Article

[229] PubMed/NCBI

[230] Google Scholar

[ref66] 66. Wang M, Ma J, Fan L, Fu K, Yu C, Gao J, et al. Biological control of southern corn leaf blight by Trichoderma atroviride SG3403. Biocontrol Sci Technol. 2015;25: 1133–1146.
View Article
Google Scholar

[232] View Article

[233] Google Scholar

[ref67] 67. Jaber LR, Ownley BH. Can we use entomopathogenic fungi as endophytes for dual biological control of insect pests and plant pathogens? Biol Control. 2018;116: 36–45.
View Article
Google Scholar

[235] View Article

[236] Google Scholar

[ref68] 68. Parsa S, Ortiz V, Vega FE. Establishing fungal entomopathogens as endophytes: Towards endophytic biological control. J Vis Exp. 2013;74. pmid:23603853
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[238] View Article

[239] PubMed/NCBI

[240] Google Scholar

[ref69] 69. Zimmermann G. The ‘Galleria bait method’ for detection of entomopathogenic fungi in soil. J Appl Entomol. 1986;102: 213–215.
View Article
Google Scholar

[242] View Article

[243] Google Scholar

[ref70] 70. Fernandes ÉKK, Keyser CA, Rangel DEN, Foster RN, Roberts DW. CTC medium: A novel dodine-free selective medium for isolating entomopathogenic fungi, especially Metarhizium acridum, from soil. Biol Control. 2010;54: 197–205.
View Article
Google Scholar

[245] View Article

[246] Google Scholar

[ref71] 71. Bischoff JF, Rehner SA, Humber RA. A multilocus phylogeny of the Metarhizium anisopliae lineage. Mycologia. 2009;101: 512–530. pmid:19623931
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[248] View Article

[249] PubMed/NCBI

[250] Google Scholar

[ref72] 72. Kepler RM, Ugine TA, Maul JE, Cavigelli MA, Rehner SA. Community composition and population genetics of insect pathogenic fungi in the genus Metarhizium from soils of a long-term agricultural research system. Environ Microbiol. 2015;17: 2791–2804. pmid:25627647
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[252] View Article

[253] PubMed/NCBI

[254] Google Scholar

[ref73] 73. Pride L, Gary V, Agehara S. How to Measure Leaf Disease Damage Using Image Analysis in ImageJ. Univ Florida/IFAS Ext. 2020.
View Article
Google Scholar

[256] View Article

[257] Google Scholar

[ref74] 74. Ives AR. For testing the significance of regression coefficients, go ahead and log-transform count data. Methods Ecol Evol. 2015;6: 828–835.
View Article
Google Scholar

[259] View Article

[260] Google Scholar

[ref75] 75. Sergaki C, Lagunas B, Lidbury I, Gifford ML, Schäfer P. Challenges and approaches in microbiome research: From fundamental to applied. Front Plant Sci. 2018;9: 1205. pmid:30174681
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[262] View Article

[263] PubMed/NCBI

[264] Google Scholar

[ref76] 76. Jaber LR, Enkerli J. Effect of seed treatment duration on growth and colonization of Vicia faba by endophytic Beauveria bassiana and Metarhizium brunneum. Biol Control. 2016;103: 187–195.
View Article
Google Scholar

[266] View Article

[267] Google Scholar

[ref77] 77. Dutta P, Kaushik H, Bhawmick P, Puzari KC, Hazarika GN. Metarhizium anisopliae as endophyte has the ability of plant growth enhancement. Int J Curr Res. 2015;7: 14300–14304.
View Article
Google Scholar

[269] View Article

[270] Google Scholar

[ref78] 78. Golo PS, Gardner DR, Grilley MM, Takemoto JY, Krasnoff SB, Pires MS, et al. Production of destruxins from Metarhizium spp. fungi in artificial medium and in endophytically colonized cowpea plants. PLoS One. 2014;9: e104946. pmid:25127450
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[272] View Article

[273] PubMed/NCBI

[274] Google Scholar

[ref79] 79. Kaushik H, Dutta P. Establishment of Metarhizium anisopliae, an entomopathogen as endophyte for biological control in tea. Res Crop. 2016.
View Article
Google Scholar

[276] View Article

[277] Google Scholar

[ref80] 80. Mantzoukas S, Chondrogiannis C, Grammatikopoulos G. Effects of three endophytic entomopathogens on sweet sorghum and on the larvae of the stalk borer Sesamia nonagrioides. Entomol Exp Appl. 2015;154: 78–87.
View Article
Google Scholar

[279] View Article

[280] Google Scholar

[ref81] 81. Barna B, Fodor J, Harrach BD, Pogány M, Király Z. The Janus face of reactive oxygen species in resistance and susceptibility of plants to necrotrophic and biotrophic pathogens. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2012;59: 37–43. pmid:22321616
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[282] View Article

[283] PubMed/NCBI

[284] Google Scholar

[ref82] 82. Deboever E, Deleu M, Mongrand S, Lins L, Fauconnier M-L. Plant–pathogen interactions: underestimated roles of phyto-oxylipins. Trends Plant Sci. 2020;25: 22–34. pmid:31668451
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[286] View Article

[287] PubMed/NCBI

[288] Google Scholar

[ref83] 83. Pangesti N, Pineda A, Pieterse CMJ, Dicke M, Van Loon JJA, Pozo MJ, et al. Two-way plant-mediated interactions between root-associated microbes and insects: from ecology to mechanisms. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4: 1–11. pmid:24167508
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[290] View Article

[291] PubMed/NCBI

[292] Google Scholar

[ref84] 84. Züst T, Agrawal AA. Trade-offs between plant growth and defense against insect herbivory: an emerging mechanistic synthesis. Annu Rev Plant Biol. 2017;68: 513–534. pmid:28142282
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[294] View Article

[295] PubMed/NCBI

[296] Google Scholar

[ref85] 85. Tzin V, Hojo Y, Strickler SR, Bartsch LJ, Archer CM, Ahern KR, et al. Rapid defense responses in maize leaves induced by Spodoptera exigua caterpillar feeding. J Exp Bot. 2017;68: 4709–4723. pmid:28981781
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[298] View Article

[299] PubMed/NCBI

[300] Google Scholar

[ref86] 86. Robert-Seilaniantz A, Grant M, Jones JDG. Hormone crosstalk in plant disease and defense: more than just jasmonate-salicylate antagonism. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2011;49: 317–343. pmid:21663438
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[302] View Article

[303] PubMed/NCBI

[304] Google Scholar

[ref87] 87. Gao FK, Dai CC, Liu XZ. Mechanisms of fungal endophytes in plant protection against pathogens. African J Microbiol Res. 2010;4: 1346–1351.
View Article
Google Scholar

[306] View Article

[307] Google Scholar

[ref88] 88. Yang Y-X J Ahammed G, Wu C, Fan S, Zhou Y-H. Crosstalk among jasmonate, salicylate and ethylene signaling pathways in plant disease and immune responses. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2015;16: 450–461.
View Article
Google Scholar

[309] View Article

[310] Google Scholar

[ref89] 89. Schäfer M, Brütting C, Meza-Canales ID, Großkinsky DK, Vankova R, Baldwin IT, et al. The role of cis-zeatin-type cytokinins in plant growth regulation and mediating responses to environmental interactions. J Exp Bot. 2015;66: 4873–4884. pmid:25998904
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[312] View Article

[313] PubMed/NCBI

[314] Google Scholar

[ref90] 90. Großkinsky D, Edelsbrunner K, Pfeifhofer H, Van der Graaff E, Roitsch T. Cis-and trans-zeatin differentially modulate plant immunity. Plant Signal Behav. 2013;8: e24798. pmid:23656869
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[316] View Article

[317] PubMed/NCBI

[318] Google Scholar

[ref91] 91. Liao X, Lovett B, Fang W, St Leger RJ. Metarhizium robertsii produces indole-3-acetic acid, which promotes root growth in Arabidopsis and enhances virulence to insects. Microbiology. 2017;163: 980–991. pmid:28708056
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[320] View Article

[321] PubMed/NCBI

[322] Google Scholar

[ref92] 92. Waqas M, Khan AL, Kamran M, Hamayun M, Kang S-M, Kim Y-H, et al. Endophytic fungi produce gibberellins and indoleacetic acid and promotes host-plant growth during stress. Molecules. 2012;17: 10754–10773. pmid:22960869
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[324] View Article

[325] PubMed/NCBI

[326] Google Scholar

[ref93] 93. Van Wees SCM, Van der Ent S, Pieterse CMJ. Plant immune responses triggered by beneficial microbes. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2008;11: 443–448. pmid:18585955
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[328] View Article

[329] PubMed/NCBI

[330] Google Scholar

[ref94] 94. Jung HW, Tschaplinski TJ, Wang L, Glazebrook J, Greenberg JT. Priming in systemic plant immunity. Science (80-). 2009;324: 89–91. pmid:19342588
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[332] View Article

[333] PubMed/NCBI

[334] Google Scholar

[ref95] 95. Pozo MJ, López‐Ráez JA, Azcón‐Aguilar C, García‐Garrido JM. Phytohormones as integrators of environmental signals in the regulation of mycorrhizal symbioses. New Phytol. 2015;205: 1431–1436. pmid:25580981
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[336] View Article

[337] PubMed/NCBI

[338] Google Scholar

[ref96] 96. Van der Ent S, Van Wees SCM, Pieterse CMJ. Jasmonate signaling in plant interactions with resistance-inducing beneficial microbes. Phytochemistry. 2009;70: 1581–1588. pmid:19712950
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[340] View Article

[341] PubMed/NCBI

[342] Google Scholar

[ref97] 97. Gutjahr C. Phytohormone signaling in arbuscular mycorhiza development. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;20: 26–34. pmid:24853646
View Article
PubMed/NCBI
Google Scholar

[344] View Article

[345] PubMed/NCBI

[346] Google Scholar

Figures

Abstract

Introduction

Materials and methods

Fungal isolates

Greenhouse experiment

Surface disinfection of maize seeds.

Soil preparation.

Seed treatment.

Plant pot preparation.

Inoculation of plants with C. heterostrophus.

Plant response.

Estimation of disease severity.

Endophytic colonization by M. robertsii.

Phytohormone profiles and defense-related gene expression in maize.

Statistical analyses

Results

Endophytic colonization and maize growth

SCLB

Maize defense gene expression

Lipoxygenase pathway.

Pathogenesis-related chitinases.

Pathogenesis-related proteins.

Phytohormone content of maize leaf tissue

Cis-zeatin.

Gibberellin 19.

Salicylic acid (SA).

Discussion

Conclusion

Supporting information

S1 Table. Gene sequences of the primers used for qRT-PCR for maize.

Acknowledgments

References