Site Map
Research Article
Bio Prospecting Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Isolated from Maize (zea mays l.) Roots
Angela Cristina Ikeda1, Vivian Jaskiw Szilagyi Zecchin1, Daiani Cristina Savi1, Vanessa Kava1, Chirlei Glienke1, Mariangela Hungria2 and Lygia Vitória Galli Terasawa1*
1Department of Genetics, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, Brazil
2EMBRAPA Soja, Londrina, Brazil

ABSTRACT
Maize (Zea mays L.) culture has a great importance in several countries, especially in Brazil the third-largest world producer. The increase in maize production has been achieved with a high use of fungicide; however, in view of a more sustainable agriculture plant growth promoting bacteria have been explored aiming for the replacement of chemical fertilizers and biological control. In this study, we investigated the bacterial community isolated from maize roots in order to evaluate their capacity of growth promotion as well as of inhibition of fungal species associated with maize leaf diseases. All isolates evaluated were positive for at least one of the parameters evaluated-growth promotion, enzymatic production or bio control. The best results were observed for Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 and Bacillus sp. LGMB242 that showed the high potential for growth promotion, acting in the early stage of maize seedlings development. Bacillus sp. LGMB152 showed the best enzymatic results, indicating that it might play a role against pathogens, a premise supported by the antagonist activity observed. The next steps involve evaluations under field conditions to confirm if these isolates have biotechnological potential as inoculants for the maize crop. In addition, we suggest that Enterobacter strains LGMB221 and LGMB235 and Escherichia strain LGMB159 might represent new species, indicating the high diversity of bacteria in maize rhizosphere that remains to be determined.
Keywords
16S rRNA; Fungi antagonism; PGPB

Introduction
Maize (Zea mays L.) is an important crop in the tropical climatic region and one of the three major food staple crops for the world’s population. In Brazil, the third-largest world producer, the culture has great importance to the agribusiness [1]. The increase in grain production has been achieved mainly by genetic improvements, in association with fertilizers and agrochemicals application.

Especially in the past few years, the focus of many research groups is to find Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria (PGPB) that will act in plant growth through one or more mechanisms, including biological nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, production of hormones such as auxins, modifying root diameter [2,3].

Besides the use as PGPB, bacteria have attract attention for their potential to inhibit phytopathogens development, bean alternative to the application of fungicides, mitigating the environmental impacts and contributing to a more sustainable agriculture [4]. Studies performed with tomatoes (Solanum lycopersicum) [5], soybean (Glycine max) and cotton (Gossypium arboretum) [6] have shown that PGPB can act as antagonists to others pathogenic strains, been an effective biological controller, and in the same time increasing grain production. However, the selection of an effective PGPB consists of annex tensive and indispensable preliminary biochemical analysis in vitro. Despite the high amount of studies conducted in plant growth promoting, we decided to explore a previous culture collection of bacteria isolated from different maize genotypes including maize lineages and their respective hybrids [7], in order to evaluated if these isolates can act as plant growth promoting in a different hybrid from the one that they were isolated.

In this way, the aim of this study was to identify bacterial strains isolated from roots of different maize genotypes and to characterize their potential to be used as plant growth promoter and fungal biological controller by in vitro and in vivo evaluations.
Material and Methods
Strains and 16S rRNA gene sequencing
The bacteria used in this study were previously isolated from roots of different maize genotypes and were selected in view of the genetic diversity [7]. The bacteria were isolated from lineages LA, LB, LC, and LD and the hybrids ATL100, FTH510 and FX1453 (derived from the crosses between LA × LC, LA × LB and LA × LD, respectively), provide by “Semilia Genética e Melhoramento Ltda” (Brazil). The root samples were submerged in sterilized distilled water for one minute, immersion in 70% ethanol (v/v) for one minute, three minutes in sodium hypochlorite 3% (v/v), 30 seconds in 70% ethanol (v/v) and then washed three times in sterilized distilled water for one minute. After surface sterilization, the samples were fragmented into 5 pieces of 8mm and aseptically transferred to plates containing one of the following solid culture media without nitrogen (N-free media): NFb, JNFb, LGI, or LGI-P [7]. The isolates are deposited at the Laboratory of Genetics of Microorganisms-LABGEM, Department of Genetics, Federal University of Parana, Curitiba, PR, Brazil. For bacteria identification, the genomic DNA was extracted by the phenol-chloroform method adapted from [8]. The isolates were re-identified based phylogeny analysis of full sequence of 16S rRNA gene. The amplification was performed using primers fD1 (5'-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3') and rD1 (5'-AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCC-3') [9], as described by Menna et al., [10]. Sequencing reaction was performed with primers fD1, 362f (5'-CTCCTACGGGAGGCAGCAGTGGGG-3') and 786f (5'-CGAAAGCGTGGGGAGCAAACAGG-3'), DNA purification was performed using Sephadex™ G-50 DNA and DNA sequencing was performed on an automated DNA sequence Mega BACE™ 1000. DNA sequences were compared with sequences available in the National Center for Biotechnology Information database (http://blast.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) using the BLAST tool [11]. Sequences from the type strains were obtained from Myco Bank (http://www.mycobank.org) and Gen Bank (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/genbank). Alignments of DNA sequences were performed using the Bio Edit version 7.2.5 [12] and Clustal W [13] in MEGA v.6 [14]. Bayesian inference of the phylogeny was performed in MrBayes version 3.2.1 [15], with permutations allowed until a frequency of division ≤ 0.01 was reached. The General Time-Reversible (GTR) substitution model was used. Figure Tree version 1.4.2 was used to edit the phylogenetic trees that were constructed. Sequences obtained in this study were deposited in Gen Bank and accession numbers were obtained.
Plant growth promotion evaluation
Plant growth promotion was evaluated by the capacity of isolates to fix biological nitrogen, solubilize phosphate and produces iderophores, indole acetic acid and enzymes. In addition; we also evaluate the ability of strains topromoting the growth of maizehypocotyl and root by seeds germination.

Analysis of siderophore production was carried out according to Schwyn and Neil [16] adapted by using solid DYGS medium (2g dextrose; 1.5g peptone; 2g yeast extract; 0.5g K2HPO4; 0.5g MgSO4; 1.5g L-glutamic acid; 15g agar 15g, pH 7.0) adding CAS (60.5g of chromo azurol S into 50mL of distilled water plus 10mL of FeCl3.6H2O 1mM in HCl 10mM) carefully mixed into 72.9mg of HDTMA (Hexadecyltrimethylamonium) dissolved in 40mL of distilled water. Phosphate solubilization was evaluated according to Chagas Junior et al., [17], using the culture medium GL (10g glucose; 2g yeast extract; 15g agar added to 0.25g/L of K2HPO4 solution and 1g/LCaCl2, pH 6.5). Positive result was revealed by the halo formation around the colony.

Biological nitrogen fixation was evaluated as described by Araújo et al., [18], using the JNFb semi-solid medium (5g malic acid; 0.6g K2HPO4; 1.8g KH2PO4; 0.2g MgSO4.7H2O; 0.1g NaCl; 0.02g CaCl2.2H2O; 20mg yeast extract; 0.08mg CuSO4.5H2O; 2.4mg ZnSO4.7H2O; 2.8mg H3BO3; 2mg Na2MoO4.2H2O; 2.35mg MnSO4.H2O; 65.6mg Na2 EDTA; 0.1mg biotin; 0.2mg pyridoxine; 4.5g KOH; 2mL bromothymol blue 0.5%; 2.2g agar, pH 6.8) [19]. The bacteria growth was revealed by the formation of a pellicle on the medium surface.

Indol Acetic Acid (IAA) production was evaluated using the methodology described by Kuss et al. [20], modified by using DYGS culture medium containing 10µL of tryptophan 10mg/mL. Salkowski solution (FeCl3.6H2O 2% + H2SO4 37%) was added to reveal the results, absorbance values were measured by spectrophotometry at 530nm wavelength and final values were expressed in µg/mL. Correlation data for IAA production and seed germination was performed using Bio Estat 5.0 [21].

Seed germination was evaluated using the commercial hybrid maize SX2530 provided by Semilia Genética e Melhoramento Ltda, in order to evaluate the interaction of the isolated bacteria with a different hybrid from the one that they were isolated. Seeds were superficially disinfested by immersion in 70% ethanol (v/v) for one minute, three minutes in sodium hypochlorite 3% (v/v), 30 seconds in 70% ethanol (v/v) and then washed three times in sterilized distilled water for one minute. The experiment was performed using 48 seeds for each isolate. The bacteria were growth in LB culture medium. Microbiolization was done by adding the seeds to the culture medium containing 108cells/mL during two hours at 37°C. Microbiolized seeds were placed in germination paper humidified with distilled water and incubated in Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) at 28°C for seven days [22]. Evaluations of length (cm) and volume (cm3) of roots and hypocotyls were verified using Win-Rhizov.4.0 software (Regent Systems, Quebec, Canada). For statistical analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) was performed by Assistat 7.6 Beta [23].
Enzymatic profile
The production of extracellular enzymes such as amylase, pectinase, cellulase, chitinase, lipase, proteases and urease can act in Plant Growth Promotion (PGP) and indicate a biological controller potential. Amylase production was performed in MM9 medium (200mL of salt solution containing 12.8g Na2HPO4.2H2O; 3g KH2PO4; 0.5g NaCl; 1g NH4Cl added to 2mL MgSO4 1M; 10g glucose; 0.1mL CaCl2 1M; 15g agar; pH 7.0) containing 0.5% yeast extract and 1% soluble starch [24]. Result was revealed by iodine added to colonies grown. Pectinase was also evaluated in MM9 medium containing 1% of pectin [25]. Cellulase and chitinase tests were performed according to Renwick et al., [26]. Cellulase production was revealed by Congo Red added to amid mineral culture medium (0.02g CaCO3; 0.01g FeSO4.7H2O; 1.71g KCl; 0.05g MgSO4.7H2O; 4.11g Na2HPO4.12H2O; 15g agar; 0.5% carboxy methylcellulose, pH 5.0) and chitinase was evaluated in MM9 with 0.08% colloidal chitin. The assay for lipase production was carried out in solid culture sterase medium (10g peptone; 5g NaCl; 0.1g CaCl2.2H2O; 15g agar, pH 7.4) [27]. Protease production was evaluated in skimmed milk and agar medium (1.000mL skimmed milk heated at 55°C; 6g Tripticase-Soy-Agar; 20g agar, pH 7.0) [28]. Positive results were evaluated by the presence of halo around the colonies.

Urease production was evaluated in urease culture medium (0.5g Na2HPO4; 0.5g K2HPO4, 0.5g; 0.2g MgSO4.7H2O; 10mL NaCl 10%; 1g yeast extract; 2.5mL bromothymol blue 0.5%, pH 5,8) [29]. Positive result was revealed by the change of culture medium to blue color.
Fungi antagonism
The antifungal activity was evaluated using the dual culture method [30] and six fungi isolated from lesions on maize leaves: Alternaria sp. (LGMF1021) and Diaporthe sp. (LGMF1054) [31]; Cercosporazeae-maydis (LGMF1047) and Bipolaris maydis (LGMF1048) provided by the Biological Institute of São Paulo; Fusarium verticillioides (LGMF1046) and Colletotrichum graminicola (LGMF1044) provided by the culture collection of Phytopathogenic Fungi Prof. Maria Menezes. The bacteria and the phytopathogen fungi were previously cultured on PDA medium, pH 5.8 for seven days. One disc (6mm) from the phytopathogen was in one side of the petri dish, and in the opposite site a bacteria streak was inoculated, the experiment was performed in triplicate, and incubated at 28°C for seven days. To determine the Inhibition Percentage (IP), the diameters of colonies were measured, and the IP was calculated according to the following formula: IP = mycelial growth in the control-mycelial growth in the treated sample/mycelial growth in the control × 100. For statistical analysis, Kruskal-Wallis test (p < 0.05) was performed by Assistat 7.6 Beta [23].
Statistical Analysis
Seed germination was evaluated by length (cm) and volume (cm3) of roots and hypocotyls comparing the treatments with the control without the inoculation of bacteria. Fungi antagonism was evaluated comparing the growth of fungus in the treatments and without the inoculation of bacteria. The data of both experiments were submitted to normality and homogeneity tests and once they did not satisfy the conditions for ANOVA, they were submitted to the non-parametric test using Kruskal-Wallis at 95% of significance (p < 0.05) performedon Assistat 7.6 Beta software [23].

The analysis of correlation between IAA production and the seed germination were performed using the Pearson correlation test, considering hypocotyl and root growing, at Bio Estat 5.0 software [21].
Results
Bacteria identification
Among the 150 bacterial isolates from different maize genotypes, heterotic pairs and their respective commercial hybrids [7], eight strains-LGMB141, LGMB143, LGMB152, LGMB159, LGMB178, LGMB221, LGMB235, and LGMB242-were selected to evaluate their ability in promote plant growth. The isolates were identified by phylogenetic analysis of 16S rRNA gene and classified as belonging to the genera Bacillus (LGMB141, LGMB143, LGMB152, LGMB178, and LGMB242), Escherichia (LGMB159), and Enterobacter (LGMB221 and LGMB235). Four out of the eight Bacillus strains (LGMB141, LGMB143, LGMB152 and LGMB242), showed high similarity with five Bacillus species, while isolate LGMB178 was positioned in another clade with other Bacillus species (Figure 1 and S1). Isolate LGMB159 belong to the Escherichia genus differs from described species (Figure 2), in addition, strains LGMB221 and LGMB235 did not cluster with any described species in Enterobacter (Figure 3).
Characterization for plant growth promotion
Bacillus sp. LGMB141, LGMB143, LGMB152 and Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 and LGMB235 synthesized siderophores (Table 1). However, none of these isolates was able to solubilize phosphateor fix nitrogen. All isolates evaluated synthesized IAA, up to 25.75µg/Ml by Bacillus sp. LGMB143, followed by Escherichia sp. LGMB159 and Enterobacter sp. LGMB235, with 13.43µg/mL and 14.24µg/mL, respectively. In addition, Pearson correlation analysis showed that root length and volume are positively correlated to IAA production (r = 0.49 and r = 0.44, respectively) but negatively to hypocotyl (r = -0.45 for length and r = -0.44 for volume).

We also evaluated the capacity of the isolates in affect ingmaize seed development (Table 2). Bacillus sp. LGMB242 increased root volume by 25.7% and root length by 34.9%, in comparison with the control (without bacteria inoculation); the other strains did not show any improvement in the root length or volume. Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 increased hypocotyl length and volume by 21.8% and 33.2%, respectively, but no effect was observed by the other strains.

About extracellular enzymes production, Enterobacter sp. LGMB235 produced lipase and urease, Bacillus sp. LGMB143 produced pectinase and LGMB141 protease. Bacillus sp. LGMB152 produced the four enzymes and cellulase either. Chitinase was produced by isolates LGMB221 and LGMB235 (both classified as Enterobacter sp.).
Antifungal activity
In the anti fungal analysis all isolates except for LGMB178, inhibited the growth of Alternaria sp. (LGMF1021) by more than 50%, isolates LGMB235 (Enterobacter sp.) and LGMB242 (Bacillus sp.) showed the highest inhibition of 66.0%. Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 and Bacillus sp. LGMB143 had a notable inhibition of Colletotrichum graminicola (LGMF1044) by 74.5 and 67.6%, respectively. Against Fusarium verticillioides (LGMF1046), Bacillus sp. LGMB143 and LGMB152 showed the highest antifungal activity, inhibiting the phytopathogen development 60.0% and 58.8%, respectively. Against Cercosporazeae-maydis (LGMF1047) all isolates were able to inhibit the pathogen growth by more than 50%, and LGMB152 and LGMB221 showed the highest antifungal activity (Table S1). Few isolates were effective against Bipolarismaydis (LGMF1048) and Diaporthe sp. (LGMF1054) growth, with LGMB152 inhibiting the first by 74.3%, and LGMB143 and LGMB152 in habiting the latest by 62.2% (Table 3 and S1).
Discussion
Several studies have reported the benefits of PGPB inoculation. The plant-growth promotion effect is influenced by both biotic and a biotic factors, including the species of bacteria used and their capacity of producing enzymes, siderophores, IAA, among other components, such as secondary metabolites that can act inhibiting phytopathogens. In this context, we tested bacteria from roots of different maize genotypes, heteroticpairs, and their respective commercial hybrids to explore their capacity in growth promotion and fungal bio control.

Among the 150 bacterial isolates obtained in our previous study, eight were selected for PBPB ability as well as antagonism properties based on the variability observed in a BOX PCR analysis [7]. Strain LGMB159 was identified as Escherichia sp., but probably representing a new species and the same was observed for Enterobacter spp. strains (LGMB221 and LMGB235). Isolates belonging to Enterobacteriaceae family (Enterobacter, Escherichia, Pantoea) have been commonly described as plant-associated bacteria, and previously studies showed a high ability of these generato produce indoles, such as IAA that has an important aspect in plant growth promotion [32-34]. In addition, bacteria belonging to genus Bacillus are common associated with plant growth promotion due the production of different factors, such as, IAA, siderophores, HCN and ammonia [35-37]. These elements are crucial for agricultural crops, wild plants and microalgae [38-41].

Siderophores production act stimulating plant growth by multiple mechanisms, including the provision of iron to plants, production of phytohormones and organic acids that can act solubilizing phosphate. These mechanisms can act direct and indirectly as making nutrients available for plant absorption or depriving pathogenic organisms of essential elements to survival [34]. In our study, strains LGMB141, LGMB143, LGMB152, LGMB221, and LGMB235 showed siderophores production, that besides acting in iron assimilation by plants, can also act as an iron kidnapper from phytopathogens [37]. However, none of the isolates evaluated showed the ability to solubilize phosphate or fixing nitrogen.

All strains produced considerable amounts of IAA, with an emphasis to Bacillus sp. LGMB143; followed by Escherichia sp. LGMB159 and Enterobacter sp. LGMB235. The amount of IAA produced by these strains is substantially higher than in other studies with bacteria of the same genus [42,43]. However, the results are alike to that reported under similar environmental conditions from this region [44], which may suggest that these strains are able to produce IAA by the same biosynthetic pathways. Considering the effects on seed germination, Bacillus sp. LGMB242 increased root length and volume, while Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 increased hypocotyl length and volume. Harsh et al., [45], found that some microbial strains can produce bio stimulants such as auxins from precursors existing in plants roots, or IAA production. However, in our study, strains that increased the root and hypocotyl development are not the strains with the highest IAA production in vitro. This data can be explained by once the addition of microbial auxin can change the optimal level of endogenous auxin and can cause plant growth inhibition [46].

Production of extracellular enzymes by microorganisms plays an important role in plant pathogens control, in addition to other biotechnological applications [47]. About the enzymes evaluated in our study, just two strains (Bacillus sp. LGMB178 and Escherichia sp. LGM159) showed no extracellular enzyme production, but one strain (Bacillus sp. LGMB152) was able to produce six out of seven enzymes analyzed. Several reports have been shown that plant rhizospheric strains exhibit high enzymatic activity, in addition to other antifungal metabolites [48], and the hydrolytic enzymes produced by these strains can degrade the structural matrix of fungal cell walls and therefore act as antifungal factors [49].

LGMB152 play a role on enzyme activity against maize pathogens, and when evaluated the antifungal activity, once more, this strain showed promising results with high activity against five out of the six pathogens evaluated (Alternaria sp., Fusarium verticilioides, Cercosporazeae-maydis, Bipolaris maydis and Diaporthe sp.) and moderate activity against Colletotrichum graminicola. This latest, is an important fungus of maize crops [33,50,51]. However, strain LGMB235, which produced enzymes lipase, chitinase and urease, showed considerable activity only against Alternaria sp. and Cercosporazeae-maydis, suggesting that there was not a direct correlation between the production of extracellular enzymes and phytopathogens inhibition, but enzyme production activity can help to protect plant against pathogenic fungi. Therefore, bio prospecting of PGPB aiming at their use as bio control, has high importance to reduce the use of fertilizers and pesticides favoring a sustainable agriculture.
Conclusion
In this study, we explored the bacterial community isolated from roots of maize lineages and hybrids in order to evaluate their capacity for growth promotion as well as of inhibition of major maize phyto pathogens. All isolates evaluated were positive for at least one of the parameters evaluated-growth promotion, enzymatic production or bio control. Enterobacter sp. LGMB221 and Bacillus sp. LGMB242 showed the highest potential for growth promotion. Bacillus sp. LGMB152 produced the largest number of evaluated enzymes, acting as an antagonist for different fungal associated with maize diseases. The next steps involve the evaluations under field conditions, to confirm if these isolates have biotechnological potential as inoculants for the maize crop. Beside the PGPB potential, we suggest that Enterobacter strains LGMB221 and LGMB235 and Escherichia strain LGMB159 might represent new species.
Acknowledgment
Semília Genética e Melhoramento Ldta for providing biological material. This study was partially financed by INCT-CNPq (Brazilian National Council for Scientific and Technological Development) (MPCPAgro 465133/2014-2).

References
  1. Ranum P, Peña-Rosas JP, Garcia-Casal MN (2014) Global maize production, utilization, and consumption. Ann N Y Acad Sci 1312: 105-112.
  2. Cassán F, Maiale S, Masciarelli O, Vidal A, Luna V, et al. (2009) Cadaverine production by Azospirillum brasilense and its possible role in plant growth promotion and osmotic stress mitigation. Eur J Soil Biol 45: 12-19.
  3. Hungria M, Campo RJ, Souza EM, Pedrosa FO (2010) Inoculation with selected strains of Azospirillum brasilense and A. lipoferum improves yields of maize and wheat in Brazil. Plant and Soil 331: 413-425.
  4. O’Callaghan M (2016) Microbial inoculation of seed for improved crop performance: Issues and opportunities. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol 100: 5729-5746.
  5. Silva JRC, Souza RM, Zacarone AB, Silva LHCP, Castro MAS (2008) Bactérias endofíticas no controle e inibição in vitro de pseudomonas syringae pv tomato, agente da pinta bacteriana do tomateiro. Ciênc agrotec 32: 1062-1072.
  6. Assumpção LC, Lacava PT, Dias ACF, Azevedo JL, Menten JOM (2009) Diversidade e potencial biotecnológico da comunidade bacteriana endofítica de sementes de soja. Pesqui Agropec Bras 44: 503-510.
  7. Ikeda AC, Bassani LL, Adamoski D, Stringari D, Kava Cordeiro V, et al. (2013) Morphological and genetic characterization of endophytic bacteria isolated from roots of different maize genotypes. Microb Ecol 65: 154-160.
  8. Sambrook J, Fritsch EF, Maniatis T (1989) Molecular cloning: A laboratory manual. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, New York, USA.
  9. Weisburg WG, Barns SM, Pelletier DA, Lane DJ (1991) 16S Ribosomal DNA amplification for phylogenetic study. J Bacteriol 173: 697-703.
  10. Menna P, Hungria M, Barcellos FG, Bangel EV, Hess PN, et al. (2006) Molecular phylogeny based on the 16S rRNA gene of elite rhizobial strains used in Brazilian commercial inoculants. Syst Appl Microbiol 29: 315-332.
  11. Dowd SC, Zaragoza J, Rodriguez JR, Oliver MJ, Payton PR (2005) Windows .NET network distributed basic local alignment search toolkit (W.ND-BLAST). Bmc Bioinformatics 6: 93.
  12. Hall TA (2013) Bio Edit 7.2.5. Bio edit: A user-friendly bi ological sequence alignment editor and analysis program for Windows 95/98/NT [http://www.mbio.ncsu.edu/BioEdit/bioedit.html].
  13. Thompson JD, Higgins DG, Gibson TJ (1994) CLUSTAL W: Improving the sensitivity of progressive multiple sequence alignment through sequence weighting, position-specific gap penalties and weight matrix choice. Nucleic Acids Res 22: 4673-4680.
  14. Tamura K, Dudley J, Nei M, Kumar S (2012) MEGA5: Molecular Evolutionary Genetics Analysis (MEGA) software version 5.0.
  15. Ronquist F, Teslenko M, Van Der Mark P, Ayres DL, Darling A (2012) MrBayes 3.2: Efficient bayesian phylogenetic inference and model choice across a large model space. Syst Biol 61: 539-542.
  16. Schwyn B, Neilands JB (1987) Universal chemical assay for the detection and determination of siderophores. Anal Biochem 160: 47-56.
  17. Chagas Junior AF, de Oliveira LA, de Oliveira AN, Willerding AL (2010) Capacidade de solubilização de fosfatos e eficiência simbiótica de rizóbios isolados de solos da Amazônia. Acta Sci Agron 32: 359-366.
  18. Araújo LM, Monteiro RA, Souza EM, Steffens MB, Rigo LU, et al. (2004) GlnB is specifically required for Azospirillum brasilense NifA activity in Escherichia coli. Res Microbiol 155: 491-495.
  19. Baldani JI, Reis VM, Videira SS, Boddey LH, Baldani VLD (2014) The art of isolating nitrogen-fixing bacteria from non-leguminous plants using N-free semi-solid media: A practical guide for microbiologists. Plant and Soil 384: 413-431.
  20. Kuss AV, Kuss VV, Lovato T, Flôres ML (2007) Fixação de nitrogênio e produção de ácido indol in vitro por bactérias diazotróficas endofíticas. Pesqui Agropec Bras 42: 1459-1465.
  21. Ayres M, Ayres Junior M, Ayres DL, Santos AS (2007) Bio Estat. Versão 5.0, Sociedade Civil Mamirauá, MCT - CNPq, Belém, Pará, Brasil.
  22. Regras para análise de sementes (2009) Ministério da Agricultura, Pecuária e Abastecimento. Regras para análise de sementes, Brasília, Pg no: 399.
  23. Silva FS, Azevedo CAV (2002) Versão do programa computacional Assistat para o sistema operacional Windows. Rev Bras Prod Agroind 4: 71-78.
  24. Murugappan RM, Aravinth A, Rajaroobia R, Karthikeyan M, Alamelu MR (2012) Optimization of MM9 medium constituents for enhancement of siderophoregenesis in marine Pseudomonas putida using response surface methodology. Indian J Microbiol 52: 433-441.
  25. Hankin L, Anagnostakis SL (1975) The use of solid media for detection of enzyme production by fungi. Mycologia 67: 597-607.
  26. Renwick A, Campbell R, Coe S (1991) Assesment of in vivo screening systems for potential biocontrol agents of Gaeumannomyces graminis. Plant Pathol 40: 524-532.
  27. Sierra G (1957) A simple method for the detection of lipolytic activity of micro-organisms and some observations on the influence of the contact between cells and fatty substrates. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 23: 15-22.
  28. Berg G, Egamberdieva D, Lugtenberg B, Hagemann M (2010) Symbiotic Plant-Microbe interactions: Stress protection, plant growth promotion, and biocontrol by Stenotrophomonas. Symbioses and Stress 18: 445-460.
  29. Dye DW (1968) A taxonomic study of the genus Erwinia 1. The “amylovora” group. New Zeal J Sci 11: 590-607.
  30. Noriler SA, Savi DC, Aluizio R, Palácio Cortes AM, Possiede YM, et al. (2018) Bioprospecting and structure of fungal endophyte communities found in the Brazilian biomes, Pantanl, and Cerrado. Front Microbiol 9: 1526.
  31. Szilagyi-Zecchin VJ, Adamoski D, Gomes RR, Hungria M, Ikeda AC, et al. (2016) Composition of endophytic fungal community associated with leaves of maize cultivated in south Brazilian field. Acta Microbiol Immunol Hung 4: 449-466.
  32. de Souza R, Beneduzi A, Ambrosini A, da Costa PB, Meyer J, et al. (2013) The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cropped in southern Brazilian fields. Plant and Soil 366: 585-603.
  33. Costa PB, Granada CE, Ambrosini A, Moreira F, Souza R, et al. (2014) A model to explain plant growth promotion traits: A multivariate analysis of 2,211 bacterial isolates. PLoS One 9: 116020.
  34. Souza R, Ambrosini A, Passaglia LMP (2015) Plant growth-promoting bacteria as inoculants in agricultural soils. Gen Mol Biol 38: 401-419.
  35. De Bashana LE, Hernandez JP, Bashana Y, Maier R (2010) Bacillus pumilus ES4: Candidate plant growth-promoting bacterium to enhance establishment of plants in mine tailings. Environ Exp Bot 69: 343-352.
  36. Nautiyal CS, Srivastava S, Chauhan PS, Seem K, Mishra A, et al. (2013) Plant growth-promoting bacteria Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NBRISN13 modulates gene expression profile of leaf and rhizosphere community in rice during salt stress. Plant Physiol Biochem 66: 1-9.
  37. Ahemad M, Kibret M (2014) Mechanisms and applications of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: Current perspective. J King Saud Uni Sci 26: 1-20.
  38. Bashan Y, Moreno M, Troyo E (2000) Growth promotion of the seawater-irrigated oilseed halophyte Salicornia bigelovii inoculated with mangrove rhizosphere bacteria and halotolerant Azospirillum spp. Biol Fertil Soils 32: 265-272.
  39. Enebak SA, Wei G, Kloepper JW (1998) Effects of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on loblolly and slash pine seedlings. For Sci 44: 139-144.
  40. Hernandez JP, de-Bashan LE, Rodriguez DJ, Rodriguez Y, Bashan Y (2009) Growth promotion of the freshwater microalga Chlorella vulgaris by the nitrogen-fixing, plant growth-promoting bacterium Bacillus pumilus from arid zone soils. Eur J Soil Biol 45: 88-93.
  41. Kloepper JW, Reddy MS, Rodríguez-Kabana R, Kenney DS, Kokolis-Burelle N, et al. (2004) Application for rhizobacteria in transplant production and yield enhancement. Acta Hort 631: 217-229.
  42. Zahid M, Abbasi MK, Hameed S, Rahim N (2015) Isolation and identification of indigenous plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from Himalayan region of Kashmir and their effect on improving growth and nutrient contents of maize (Zea mays L.). Front Microbiol 6: 207.
  43. Kuan KB, Othman R, Abdul Rahim K, Shamsuddin ZH (2016) Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria inoculation to enhance vegetative growth, nitrogen fixation and nitrogen remobilization of maize under greenhouse conditions. PLoS One 11: 0152478.
  44. Szilagyi Zecchin VJ, Klosowski AC, Ikeda AC, Hungria M, Galli Terasawa LV, et al. (2015) Potential inoculant strains of Brazilian endophytic bacteria for maize (Zea mays L) growth promotion. Int J Agron Agric Res 7: 128-134.
  45. Bais HP, Weir TL, Perry LG, Gilroy S, Vivanco JM (2006) The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu Rev Plant Biol 57: 233-266.
  46. Araújo FF, Guerreiro RT (2010) Bioprospecção de isolados de Bacillus promotores de crescimento de milho cultivado em solo autoclavado e natural. Ciênc agrotec 34: 837-844.
  47. Geetha K, Bajithasri AB, Bhadraia B (2014) Isolation of plant growth promoting rhizo bacteria from rizhosphere soils of green gram, biochemical characterization and screening for antifungal activity against pathogenic fungi. Int J Pharm Sci Inv 3: 47-54.
  48. Ayyadurai N, Ravindra Naik P, Sakthivel N (2007) Functional characterization of antagonistic fluorescent pseudomonads associated with rhizospheric soil of rice (Oryza sativa L.). J Microbiol Biotechnol 17: 919-927.
  49. Josic D, Ciric A, Sokovic M, Stanojkovic-Sebic A, Pivic R, et al. (2015) Antifungal activities of indigenous plant growth promoting Pseudomonas spp. from alfalfa and clover rhizosphere. Front Life Sci 8: 131-138.
  50. Duncan KE, Howard RJ (2010) Biology of maize kernel infection by Fusarium verticillioides. Mol Plant Microbe Interact 23: 6-16.
  51. Neves DL, Silva CN, Pereira CB, Campos HD, Tessmann DJ (2015) Cercospora zeina is the main species causing gray leaf spot in southern and central Brazilian maize regions. Trop Plant Pathol 40: 368-374.

Figures


Figure 1: Baysian inferencetree based on the 16S rRNA gene of maize isolates and Bacillus type strains belonging to Clade 1. The species Brevibacillusbrevis was used as outgroup. Values on the node indicate bootstrap support. Bar indicates 10 substitutions per 1,000 nucleotides.




Figure S1: Maximum likelihood tree based on the 16S rRNA gene of maize isolates and Bacillus type strains, in red is the isolates that belonging to Clade 1. The species Brevibacillusbrevis was used as out group. Values on the node indicate bootstrap support. Bar indicates 2 substitutions per 1,000 nucleotides.



Figure 2: Baysian Inference tree based on 16S rRNA gene of maize isolates and Escherichia species. Salmonella thyphimurium was used as outgroup. Values on the node indicate bootstrap support. Bar indicates 6 substitutions per 1,000 nucleotides.



Figure 3: Baysian Inference tree based on 16S rRNA gene of maize isolates and Enterobacter species. Pantoea eucalypti was used as outgroup. Values on the node indicate bootstrap support. Bar indicates 8 substitutions per 1,000 nucleotides.

Tables

Strain Code

GenBank Accession Number

Identification Based on 16S rRNA Phylogeny

IAA(µg/mL)

BNF

Siderophore

Phosphate Solubilization

Amylase

Cellulase

Lipase

Pectinase

Protease

Chitinase

Urease

LGMB 141

KY848228

Bacillus sp.

2.16

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

LGMB 143

KY848229

Bacillus sp.

25.75

-

+

-

-

-

-

+

-

-

-

LGMB 152

KY848230

Bacillus sp.

2.54

-

+

-

-

+

+

+

+

-

+

LGMB 159

KY848231

Escherichia sp.

13.43

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LGMB 178

KY848232

Bacillus sp.

7.29

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

LGMB 221

KY848233

Enterobacter sp.

7.29

-

+

-

-

-

-

-

-

+

-

LGMB 235

KY848234

Enterobacter sp.

14.24

-

+

-

-

-

+

-

-

+

+

LGMB 242

KY848235

Bacillus sp.

7.59

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table 1: Strain identification, Gen Bank accession code, identification based on phylogeny analysis, quantitative results for production of Indol Acetic Acid (IAA) and qualitative results for Biological Nitrogen Fixation activity (BNF), phosphate solubilization, siderophores and enzymes production.
Note: + represent positive results; - represent negative results.

Inoculated Bacteria

Root Length (mm)

Root Volume (mm3)

Hypocotyl Length (mm)

Hypocotyl Volume (mm3)

Control without bacteria

372.13CD

1.94BCD

718.95CD

23.51CD

Bacillus sp. LGMB143

42.16A

0.48A

563.36BCD

15.18ABCD

Bacillus sp. LGMB152

370.14BCD

2.11CD

299.68ABC

8.35ABC

Escherichia sp. LGMB159

145.73ABC

1.26ABC

364.63ABCD

12.88ABCD

Bacillus sp. LGMB178

136.01AB

0.91AB

237.30A

2.13A

Enterobacter sp. LGMB221

261.80ABCD

1.69ABCD

492.49ABCD

15.99BCD

Enterobacter sp. LGMB235

225.64ABCD

1.35ABCD

875.89D

31.32D

Bacillus sp. LGMB242

296.50ABCD

1.86ABCD

262.30AB

7.29AB

Bacillus sp. LGMB141

467.92D

2.61D

350.45ABCD

11.43ABCD

Table 2: Statistical results for bacteria influence in length (mm) and volume (mm3) of root and hypocotyl maize, using the hybrid SX2530 seeds.

Straincode

ID16S RNA

LGMF1021

LGMF1044

LGMF1046

LGMF1047

LGMF1048

LGMF1054

Alternaria sp.

Colletotrichumgraminicola

Fusarium verticillioides

Cercosporazeae-maydis

Bipolarismaydis

Diaporthe sp.

LGMB141

Bacillus sp.

1.57A

3.40C

2.67B

2.47B

3.63B

3.53B

LGMB143

Bacillus sp.

0.57A

1.67ABC

1.27AB

0.60AB

3.50B

3.10AB

LGMB152

Bacillus sp.

0.63A

1.10AB

1.07A

0.83AB

2.23AB

1.33A

LGMB159

Escherichia sp.

0.57A

1.77ABC

1.10A

0.53A

0.93A

1.33A

LGMB178

Bacillus sp.

0.57A

1.50ABC

1.80AB

1.17AB

2.57AB

2.57AB

LGMB221

Enterobactersp.

1.27A

1.60ABC

2.00AB

1.27AB

2.37AB

2.07AB

LGMB235

Enterobactersp.

0.60A

0.87A

2.23AB

0.57A

1.80AB

2.40AB

LGMB242

Bacillus sp.

0.53A

2.03BC

2.17AB

1.23AB

2.57AB

3.33AB

Table S1: Inhibition of paired cultures antagonism test from bacteria against fungi associated with lesions on maize leaves.
Note: Data followed by the same letter are not statistically different. Kruskal-Wallis test p < 0.05. Analysis were performed independently for each treatment.

Isolated Strain

Phytopathogeninhibition in %

Alternaria sp.

Colletotrichum
graminicola

Fusarium
verticillioides

Cercosporazeae-maydis

Bipolaris maydis

Diaporthe sp.

Bacillus sp. LGMB141

63.91

50.98

52.56

75.71

3.58

12.18

Bacillus sp. LGMB143

59.66

67.65

60.05

66.26

38.48

62.23

Bacillus sp. LGMB152

63.91

48.04

58.8

78.41

74.29

62.23

Escherichia sp. LGMB159

63.91

55.88

32.58

52.77

29.29

27.29

Bacillus sp. LGMB178

19.32

52.94

25.09

48.72

34.8

41.45

Enterobacter sp. LGMB221

61.78

74.51

16.35

77.06

50.41

32.01

Enterobacter sp. LGMB235

66.03

40.2

18.85

50.07

29.29

5.57

Bacillus sp. LGMB242

66.03

53.92

23.85

64.91

48.58

33.9

Table 3: Percentage of inhibition of phytopathogens by the isolated bacteria in dual culture.

Citation: Ikeda AC, Zecchin VJS, Savi DC, Kava V, Glienke C, et al. (2018) Bio Prospecting Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria Isolated from Maize (zea mays l.) Roots. J Biotech Res Biochem 1: 003
Citation: © 2018 Ikeda AC, 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.