Next Article in Journal
Model Application for Sustainable Agricultural Water Use
Next Article in Special Issue
Physiological Responses to Fe Deficiency in Split-Root Tomato Plants: Possible Roles of Auxin and Ethylene?
Previous Article in Journal
Spatial and Temporal Variability of Spring Barley Yield and Quality Quantified by Crop Simulation Model
Previous Article in Special Issue
Alleviation of Salinity Induced Oxidative Stress in Chenopodium quinoa by Fe Biofortification and Biochar—Endophyte Interaction
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Crop Yield, Ferritin and Fe(II) boosted by Azospirillum brasilense (HM053) in Corn

1
Missouri Research Reactor Center, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
2
Department of Biochemistry, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
3
Chemistry Department, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
4
Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
5
Division of Plant Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO 65211, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Present Address: Burns & McDonnell, Inc. 425 S. Woods Mill Rd., Chesterfield, MO 63017, USA.
Present Address: Forensic Science Program, School of Criminal Justice, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA.
Agronomy 2020, 10(3), 394; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030394
Submission received: 11 February 2020 / Revised: 6 March 2020 / Accepted: 10 March 2020 / Published: 14 March 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Role of Iron in Plant Nutrition, Growth and Metabolism)

Abstract

:
An increasing global population of over 4.5 billion people drives increasing demand for calories—30% of which are satisfied by grain crops, such as maize. High-density farming practices have been implemented but tend to deplete the soil of essential elements resulting in lower nutritional value, notably iron, of cultivated crops. Low iron content in staple crops can contribute over time to severe, even fatal, micronutrient deficiencies. Enhancing grain iron content using post-harvest biofortification strategies can be costly. However, field inoculation using biologics like Azospirillum brasilense (HM053) can be a cost-effective alternative to improving crop nutritional value. Using ion chromatography with chemiluminescence detection, we have shown that maize seeds harvested from outdoor pot-grown plants possessed a four-fold higher iron content as ferrous iron (Fe+2) compared to non-inoculated plants. Seeds from A. brasilense HM053-inoculated plants also contained approximately 13 nmol of ferritin per ground dried weight of kernel compared to 3 nmol from non-inoculated plants. In addition, A. brasilense HM053 inoculation increased crop yield 30–50% relative to non-inoculated plants.

1. Introduction

Iron (Fe) is a necessary nutrient for life, helping form red blood cells and facilitate oxygen transfer from the lungs to other tissues. The recommended daily intake of iron for adults is at least 8 mg for men and 18 mg for women [1]. Iron deficiency is a common malnutrition disorder, causing approximately 50% of all diagnosed anemia cases and affecting more than two billion people worldwide [2,3]. Even mild and moderate iron deficiency can result in impaired human functioning [4].
The various forms of iron present in food differ in bioavailability to humans [5]. Nutritional iron is available from animal sources as heme iron or plant sources as non-heme iron. Heme iron, prevalent in meat and seafood, comes from the center of hemoglobin and myoglobin proteins and has the greatest bioavailability to humans. Heme iron generally contributes approximately 10–15% of daily iron intake. Many global populations do not have access to enough heme iron but instead rely on staple crops such as rice, maize, wheat and soybeans, leaving them susceptible to dietary iron deficiency.
Recently, increasing iron content of staple crops has been a continuing goal of research for improving nutrition worldwide [6,7,8,9,10]. Strategies to mitigate crop iron deficiency such as conventional breeding to create new cultivars, genetic modification, enhanced soil fertilization using iron enriched supplements and crop bio-fortification in post-harvest processing have been examined. Field-based strategies can often result in deleterious side effects such as concentrating toxic levels of other heavy metals in the crop products, or accumulation of iron in non-edible portions of the plant. Furthermore, the unsightly appearance of iron-enriched plants due to discoloration can often trigger public outcry over the safety of crop products from genetically modified plants [11].
While improving iron content in food crop products adds value, improving the bioavailability of that iron when consumed is crucial. Hence, understanding how iron is stored in developing seeds is important. Ferritin is a protein existing in almost all living organisms in a conserved spherical structure [12,13]. The protein coat is formed from 24 structurally equivalent polypeptide subunits. When assembled, these subunits create a hollow protein shell that can accommodate up to 4500 iron atoms. Inside the polypeptide chain, a conservative ferroxidase center is present and its activity determines the ability of ferritin to oxidize iron ions from Fe(II) to less toxic Fe(III). Iron as a ferric oxyhydroxide is bound in the protein core with varying amounts of phosphates and is reduced back to Fe(II) and released upon cell demand for iron [14,15]. While some studies have shown that dietary supplementation or bio-fortification of food products using plant ferritin can reduce symptomatic behavior due to iron deficiency [11,16], in practice, this can have huge impacts on the cost of food.
An alternate strategy for naturally boosting seed ferritin content during crop development was investigated by application of liquid inoculants of the plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) Azospirillum brasilense. Staple grains derived from grass cropping systems are not known for their ability to form conspicuous symbioses with rhizobia as is the case with legumes. Even so, there is a large body of literature attesting to the effects of certain PGPR in grasses [17,18,19,20]. The literature indicates PGPR can promote significant increases in crop yield [21,22,23,24] and documents that these bacteria can colonize a number of different grass species relevant to both bioenergy and agriculture [25,26,27]. In some cases, it has been suggested that biological nitrogen (N2) fixation may contribute to this plant growth enhancement in grass systems [28,29]. However, in most cases, the underlying mechanisms of plant growth promotion are unknown and have been attributed to a variety of sources, including antagonism toward phytopathogens [30] with induction of plant resistance to diseases [31], or phytostimulation through the transfer of phytohormones to their host [32].
Several PGPR have been identified as endophytes of grass species, including Azoarcus spp. in Kallar grass (Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth) and rice (Oryza sativa) [33,34], Herbaspirillum seropedicae in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) [20] and sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) [35], and Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus in sugarcane [36]. Others have been identified as epiphytes, including Azospirillum brasilense and Azospirillum lipoferum, which have been commercialized as crop inoculants for maize and wheat [21,22,37,38]. These strains are gaining increased acceptance in agriculture as PGPR inoculants. They are also usually not major components of the soil microflora [20,39]. These N2-fixing bacteria infect at the emergence of lateral roots and in the zone of elongation and differentiation above the root tip [40]. Typically, very high numbers of PGPR in roots have been reported (i.e., ≤108/gram root dry weight) and with no observable disease symptoms [33].
In the present work, two mutant strains of A. brasilense were examined for their influences on host kernel iron assimilation including HM053, a Nif+ constitutively expressed mutant of the nif gene coding for nitrogen fixation enzymes that fixes excess N2 and excretes large amounts of ammonium to the rhizosphere; and ipdC, a mutant strain disrupted in the ipdC gene thus impaired in auxin hormone (indole-3-acetic acid, IAA) biosynthesis. We also compared the effects of soil treatment using exogenously applied auxin on crop yield and seed iron content.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Plant Growth

For courtyard studies, 3 maize kernels from Elk Mound Seed Co. (Hybrid 8100) were sown into each of 2.7 gallon pots filled with ProMix. After germination, any excess seedlings were removed from each pot leaving a single plant. A capful of fertilizer (~ 1.2 g) containing nitrogen, phosphate and potash (14-14-14, Osmocote™ Smart-Release Plant Food Flower & Vegetable™, The Scotts Company, Marysville, OH) was added to the assigned pots at the time of planting. Fertilizer was reapplied to pots 30 days after germination (DAG) and 60 DAG. Plants were placed on elevated tables outside (Figure 1). During the 2018 growing season, four study regimes included the following: (i) non-inoculated control plants; (ii) plants inoculated with A. brasilense HM053 bacterium; (iii) plants inoculated with A. brasilense ipdC bacterium; and (iv) plants treated with 30 µM auxin plant hormone (IAA). Plants were administered liquid inoculants at 21, 42 and 63 DAG. Treatments with auxin hormone followed the same schedule. Treatments were randomized across the planting platforms and pots were rotated weekly during the growing season. The study was repeated in the 2019 growing season with the exception that auxin treatments were not applied.

2.2. Bacteria Growth

Two mutant strains of A. brasilense (ipdC and HM053) were grown in liquid NFbHP-lactate medium following published procedures [40]. The medium contained 20 mM ammonium chloride as a nitrogen source and streptomycin antibiotic selection (80 μg mL−1). The bacterial cultures were grown in 25 mL flasks in a shaking incubator set to 30 °C and 130 rpm until OD600 = 1.0 (Optical Density at 600 nm, corresponding to 108 cells mL−1) is reached. Bacterial cultures were washed with sterile water and diluted to approximately 106 to 108 colony forming units (CFU). Bacterial culture (10 mL) was injected into the soil at the base of the stem at the specified 3 time points during the growing season. Verification of bacteria presence at harvest was not carried out.

2.3. Plant Growth Measurements

Maize plants were measured with a tape measure from the soil of the pot up to the highest point of the plant in centimeters. They were measured at three time points: 17, 28, and 55 days after germination. Stem diameters were measured at the second internode up from the base of the stem using calibers. Tape was applied at these stem locations after the first time point measurement which served as a visual marker for subsequent measurements.

2.4. Chlorophyll and Leaf Thickness Measurements

Vegetative tissues were separated from roots and placed in pre-weighed and pre-chilled Eppendorf™ tubes. They were flash frozen in liquid nitrogen, ground to a fine powder and weighed. A volume of acetone equivalent to four times the milligram mass of the frozen ground tissue (assuming uniform densities) was added to the centrifuge tube. The content was vortexed (VWR analog vortex mixer; Sigma-Aldrich Corp., St. Louis, MO, USA) then sonicated (Branson Bransonic 32; Sigma-Aldrich Corp. St. Louis, MO, USA) at 0 °C for 2 minutes. Additional vortexing was performed during this period to ensure complete mixing. The Eppendorf™ tubes were then centrifuged for 2 minutes at 15,000 rpm to separate the insoluble and soluble portions. The insoluble portion contained mostly cell-wall polymers and starch while the soluble portion contained small soluble compounds such as sugars. The liquid extract was spotted onto a silica TLC plate in a 5 mm band using 2 μL of sample. The silica plate was developed in a 6:1.6:1:0.4 ratio of petroleum ether: hexane: acetone: methanol solution. Once the plate was fully developed, a razor was used to scrape off bands containing chlorophyll a and chlorophyll b. The shavings were placed in two separate Eppendorf™ tubes. Acetone (1 mL) was added to the tube containing chlorophyll a and the tube containing chlorophyll b. The samples were then vortexed and centrifuged for 4 minutes at 15,000 rpm. The absorbance of the resulting supernatant of each sample was analyzed via ultraviolet–visible spectroscopy (UV–VIS). Chlorophyll a was recorded at a wavelength of 663 nm, and Chlorophyll b was measured at a wavelength of 645 nm. Beer’s Law (A =ε bc) was then utilized to determine sample concentration of chlorophyll. Precision calipers (Fowler High Precision, Newton, MA, USA) were used to determine leaf thickness.

2.5. Ion Chromatography Measuring Seed Iron

Ferric, ferrous, and total iron were quantified from corn kernels with ion chromatography coupled with chemiluminescence detection [41] following the collection and drying of the kernels in an oven for 3 weeks at 65 °C. Seeds were pulverized between plastic sheets using a wooden mallet and dissolved in 1mL of 1M HCl. Samples were subjected to ultrasonication for 5 minutes at 100% amplitude (Branson Bransonic 32; Sigma-Aldrich Corp. St. Louis, MO, USA) then centrifuged for 15 minutes at 3000 rpm. The supernatant was removed for sampling and stored in brown glass vials in a refrigerator (2–8 °C).
Stability studies were completed for the samples, varying time between sample extraction to injection on the ion chromatograph as well as storage conditions of temperature, light, and glass versus plastic storage containers. It was found that plastic Eppendorf tubes were not effective for long term sample storage, and neither was storage at room temperature. Under these circumstances, the oxidation state of iron was observed to change quickly over a short time (< 2 h). Storing samples in brown glass vials placed in the refrigerator allowed sample stability (no change in iron oxidation states) for up to 6 hours.
Iron standards were made in 0.1M HCl. Ferric chloride (FeCl3, 1 mg mL−1) was used as a ferric iron standard and ferrous sulfate hexahydrate (FeSO4•6H2O, 1 mg mL−1) was used as the ferrous iron standard. The ferric chloride sample was then diluted 50-fold for standard curve generation, while the ferrous sulfate was diluted 10-fold. On average, it was observed that 3% of the ferric standard was reduced to ferrous iron when measured with ion chromatography chemiluminescence likely due to a solvent effect.
The analytical system consisted of a Thermo Scientific Dionex AXP Metal-Free HPLC with a Rheodyne metal-free injector and PEEK tubing 1/20 cm inner diameter. The ion chromatography column was a Thermo Scientific IonPac CS5A (4 × 50 mm guard column and 4 × 250 mm analytical column) designed to separate a broad range of metal complexes by cation and anion chromatography. The outlet of the column was connected to a mixing tee, where the post-column reagents were introduced with the column effluent to elicit the chemilumiescent reaction. Chemiluminescence was measured with the HERM data monitor (HERM LB 500, Berthold Technologies LLC, Oak Ridge, TN, USA) to allow quantification of iron in its oxidation states. Ferric iron had a retention time of approximately 4.3 minutes, while ferrous iron had a retention time of approximately 8.2 minutes.
In the analytical system, sterile water (HyPure™ WFI Quality Water, HyClone Laboratories, Logan, UT, USA) was used in solvent preparation to avoid introduction of additional iron to the samples. The column was rinsed with the WFI Quality Water, followed by flowing 1 M Na2SO3 at 0.5 mL min−1 for 45 minutes to remove any dissolved oxygen on the column. During this time, the pre-column eluent (10 mM 2,4-pyridinedicarboxylic acid [PDCA], 80 mM potassium chloride, 37 mM formic acid, and 33 mM potassium hydroxide pH adjusted to 4) was bubbled with argon gas to remove dissolved oxygen. The pre- and post-column reagents were flowed through the system at rates of 1.00 and 0.75 mL min−1, respectively. The post-column reagents consisted of 600 mM hydrogen peroxide and 0.025 mM luminol with 50 Mm sodium carbonate pH adjusted to 11.5 [41]. Standard curves were generated daily prior to sample injection and samples were injected in triplicate.

2.6. Size-Exclusion Chromatography used in Seed Ferritin Analysis

A stainless steel High-Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC) Sonntek Pump was connected to a Rheodyne injector with a 20 µL PEEK injection loop to separate biological metabolites on an Agilent Zorbax GF-250 4 µm size exclusion column (4.6 × 250 mm). Samples were quantified on an Azura UVD 2.15 Knauer UV detector set to 254 nm [42]. Mobile phase was pumped at 0.5 mL min−1 and consisted of 0.2 M ammonium sulfate with 0.05 M tris-HCl buffer at pH of 7. An antimicrobial was added (0.005% sodium azide) to maintain column integrity throughout the study. Maize kernels were acquired from the courtyard grown maize harvest and analyzed for the amount of ferritin across treatment types previously described. Dried kernels (~0.5 g) were pulverized between plastic sheets using a wooden mallet and placed in 1 mL of 50 mM tris-HCl buffer (pH 7) and ultrasonicated for two minutes at 100% amplitude. The sample was then heat treated at 75 °C for 10 minutes followed by immediate cooling on ice for 15 minutes. Centrifugation 15,000 g for 30 minutes pulled large particulates out of the supernatant which was injected (20 µL) for quantification against a ferritin standard (MyBioSource, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA).

2.7. Statistical Analysis

Data was subjected to the Shapiro–Wilk Normality Test, which was used to identify outliers so that all data groups represented a normal distribution. Data was then analyzed using the Student t-test comparing individual treatments to non-inoculated plants as the control. A level of statistical significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results and Discussion

An outdoor study using potted plants enabled assessment of crop fitness to maturity and nutritional iron content in the kernel as a function of A. brasilense and chemical auxin treatments. Crop fitness during vegetative growth was measured in the 2019 growth season by changes in plant height and stem thickness (Figure 2). Treatments appeared not to affect rates of plant growth as measured by plant height, but differences were seen in the thickness of the plant stems when measured at the second internode. Measurements taken on days 28 and 55 after germination showed a statistically significant increase in thickness from A. brasilense HM053-inoculated maize relative to non-inoculated control while other treatments had no effect. In support of improved plant growth from A. brasilense HM053 inoculation, we observed that chlorophyll content when measured in 3-week-old lab grown seedlings (Figure 3A) was significantly elevated from bacterial treatment relative to non-inoculated control plants while plants inoculated with A. brasilense ipdC showed a reduced leaf chlorophyll content. Though chlorophyll content was not measured in the outdoor potted plant studies, we do note that leaf thicknesses measured at the end of the 2019 growing season (Figure 3B) were significantly greater with A. brasilense HM053 inoculation than non-inoculated controls. Our data suggests that the effects of A. brasilense HM053 inoculation on leaf chlorophyll in the early stages of plant growth must persist throughout the growing season since we observed improved plant growth reflected by increased stem and leaf thickness.
Finally, crop seed yield was measured as the total kernels of corn per cob (Figure 4). It was found that maize associated with A. brasilense HM053 had significantly higher crop yields compared to non-inoculated control plants (34% and 53% increases for A. brasilense HM053-inoculated plants from the 2018 and 2019 growing seasons). There was also a 26% increase in crop yield from auxin treatment in the 2018 growing season, while A. brasilense ipdC-associated maize exhibited a 26% lower yield than non-treated plants, though not significant, during the 2018 growing season and no difference from non-treated plants in the 2019 growing season (Figure 4). The differences in yield between the 2018 and 2019 growing seasons may be attributed to differences in the outdoor environmental conditions. While plants were irrigated on an alternating day cycle, there was increased rainfall during the early portions of the 2019 growing season which could have contributed to the yield improvement.
An increase in maize crop yield was noted under A. brasilense HM053 inoculation and auxin treatments; however, the main purpose of leveraging bacterial inoculants in this study was to demonstrate a cost-effective means to increase iron nutrition in the crop product consumed by humans. Thus, it was most relevant to quantify the iron content of seeds as a function of treatment, as well as quantify the bioavailability of that iron bound in the ferritin protein. Ion chromatography was used to quantify total seed iron content as well as distinguish Fe2+ and Fe3+ oxidation states (Figure 5). The results revealed a strong positive correlation between seed Fe2+ accumulation and total seed iron content, with A. brasilense HM053 generating the highest iron values. This suggests inoculation in the early stage of plant development can result in a lasting effect throughout the life cycle of the plant. Furthermore, Fe3+ showed no change as a function of inoculation. Both A. brasilense HM053 and ipdC data was loosely clustered at opposite ends of iron values measured in seeds (30–130 nmols iron), whereas non-inoculated control data spanned the entire range of values. Recent studies in tomato indicate early treatments with inoculums can reshape the diversity of the soil microbiome favoring dominance of the inoculum whereas non-inoculated plants can exhibit a broad spectrum of microbiome diversity [43].
All kernels associated with A. brasilense HM053 or ipdC, as well as those treated with auxin, showed significant increases in kernel ferritin content (Figure 6). This corroborates the assertion that PGPR association improves iron integration to seed, ultimately increasing its nutritional value. The auxin treatment increasing ferritin content alludes to the importance of the auxin production capabilities of the bacteria in influencing this effect, which requires further investigation. However, this does not explain the observed increase in seed ferritin content from inoculation with the auxin deficient-mutant, A. brasilense ipdC. Past perceptions have assumed that ferritin biosynthesis is tightly regulated by cellular iron homeostasis [14]. Even so, the present results suggest that its regulation is even more complex.
Finally, while chemical treatments using auxin resulted in similar improvements in crop yield and crop nutritional value as A. brasilense HM053 inoculation relative to untreated control plants, we view chemical treatments as more intrusive to the environment, and likely a more expensive mitigation strategy than application using a liquid inoculant of bacteria.

4. Conclusions

The present study has demonstrated that certain PGPR can have beneficial effects in improving crop nutritional value. Specifically, A. brasilense HM053 a hyper N2-fixing and high auxin producing strain of A. brasilense provided the greatest benefits in improving seed iron content with improved iron bioavailability when stored in ferritin. It is also noted that this bacteria strain improved crop yields significantly, possibly as a result of host iron assimilation during the growing season impacting carbon input via the photosynthetic machinery. Future studies will seek to translate our findings from pots to the field.

Author Contributions

Experimental design and supervision, R.F. and M.S.; data collection and analysis, A.H., G.P., S.S., A.A., A.G., and M.B.; initial draft, R.F., A.H., S.W., and M.S.; final draft, All authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by Agriculture and Food Research Initiative Award No. 2017-67013-26216 from the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Emanuel de Souza (U. Paraná, Brazil) for providing the bacteria strains used in this work.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

FeIron
PGPRPlant growth-promoting rhizobacteria
N2Nitrogen
A. brasilenseAzospirillum brasilense rhizobacteria
IAACarbon dioxide
DAGDays after germination
SEStandard error
°CDegrees Celsius
rpmRotations per minute
CFUColony forming unit
TLCThin-layer chromatography
UV–VISUltraviolet–visible spectroscopy
HClHydrochloric acid
MMoles per liter

References

  1. Food and Nutrition Board Institute of Medicine. Iron. In Dietary Reference Intakes for Vitamin A, Vitamin K, Arsenic, Boron, Chromium, Copper, Iodine, Iron, Manganese, Molybdenum, Nickel, Silicon, Vanadium, and Zinc; National Academy Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2001; p. 344. [Google Scholar]
  2. McLean, E.; Cogswell, M.; Egli, I.; Wojdyla, D.; de Benoist, B. Worldwide prevalence of anemia, WHO Vitamin and Mineral Nutrition Information System. 1993–2005. Public Health Nutr. 2009, 12, 444–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. World Health Organization. Assessing the Iron Status of Populations. 2007. Available online: https://www.who.int/nutrition/publications/micronutrients/anaemia_iron_deficiency/9789241596107/en/ (accessed on 19 August 2019).
  4. World Health Organization. Iron Deficiency Anaemia Assessment, Prevention and Control; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  5. Office of Dietary Supplements-NIH. Iron: Fact Sheet for Health Professionals. Strengthening Knowledge and Understanding of Dietary Supplements. NIH. 2019. Available online: https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Iron-HealthProfessional/ (accessed on 19 August 2019).
  6. Drakakaki, G.; Marcel, S.; Glahn, R.P.; Lund, E.K.; Pariagh, S.; Fischer, R.; Christou, P.; Stoger, E. Endosperm-specific co-expression of recombinant soybean ferritin and Aspergillus phytase in maize results in significant increases in the levels of bioavailable iron. Plant Mol. Biol. 2005, 59, 869–880. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Haas, J.D.; Beard, J.L.; Murray-Kolb, L.E.; del Mundo, A.M.; Felix, A.; Gregorio, G.B. Iron-biofortified rice improves the iron stores of nonanemic Filipino women. J. Nutr. 2005, 135, 2823–2830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Kanobe, M.N.; Rodermel, S.R.; Bailey, T.; Scott, M.P. Changes in endogenous gene transcript and protein levels in maize plants expressing the soybean ferritin transgene. Front Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Borg, S.; Brinch-Pedersen, H.; Tauris, B.; Madsen, L.H.; Darbani, B.; Noeparvar, S.; Holm, P.B. Wheat ferritins: Improving the iron content of the wheat grain. J. Cereal Sci. 2012, 56, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sui, X.; Yan, Z.; Wang, S. Improvement Fe content of wheat (Triticum aestivum) grain by soybean ferritin expression cassette without vector backbone sequence. J. Agric. Biotech. 2012, 20, 766–773. [Google Scholar]
  11. Zielińska-Dawidziak, M. Plant Ferritin—A source of iron to prevent its deficiency. Nutrients 2015, 7, 1184–1201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Sczekan, S.R.; Joshi, J.G. Isolation and characterization of ferritin from soyabeans (Glycine max). J. Biol. Chem. 1987, 262, 13780–13788. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hsieh, H.M.; Liu, W.K.; Huang, P.C. A novel stress-inducible metallothionein-like protein from rice. Plant Mol. Biol. 1995, 28, 381–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Briat, J.-F.; Ravet, K.; Arnaud, N.; Duc, C.; Boucherez, J.; Touraine, B.; Cellier, F.; Gaymard, F. New insights into ferritin synthesis and function highlight a link between iron homeostasis and oxidative stress in plants. Ann. Bot. 2010, 105, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Liu, X.; Theil, E.C. Ferritins: Dynamic management of biological iron and oxygen chemistry. Acc. Chem. Res. 2005, 38, 167–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Zielińska-Dawidziak, M.; Hertig, I.; Staniek, H.; Piasecka-Kwiatkowska, D.; Nowak, K.W. Effect of Iron Status in Rats on the Absorption of Metal Ions from Plant Ferritin. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2014, 69, 101–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. James, E.K.; Baldani, J.I. The role of biological nitrogen fixation by non-legumes in the sustainable production of food and biofuels. Plant Soil 2012, 356, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hurek, T.; Reinhold-Hurek, B.; Van Montagu, M.; Kellenberger, E. Root colonization and systemic spreading of Azoarcus sp. strain BH72 in grasses. J. Bacteriol. 1994, 176, 1913–1923. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Yanni, Y.G.; Rizk, R.Y.; Corich, V.; Squartini, K.; Ninke, S.; Philip-Hollingsworth, G.; Orgambide, F.; de Bruijn, F.; Stoltzfus, J.; Buckley, D.; et al. Natural endophytic association between Rhizobium leguminosarum bv. trifolii and rice roots and assessment of its potential to promote rice growth. Plant Soil 1997, 194, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. James, E.K.; Olivares, F.L. Infection and colonization of sugar cane and other Graminaceous plants by endophytic diazotrophs. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1998, 17, 77–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Okon, Y.; Labandera-Gonzalez, C.A. Agronomic applications of Azospirillum: An evaluation of 20 years worldwide field inoculation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1994, 26, 1591–1601. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dobbelaere, S.; Croonenborghs, A.; Thys, A.; Ptacek, D.; Vanderleyden, J.; Dutto, P.; Labandera-Gonzalez, C.; Caballero-Mellado, J.; Aguirre, J.F.; Kapulnik, Y.; et al. Responses of agronomically important crops to inoculation with Azospirillum. Funct. Plant Biol. 2001, 28, 871–879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pedraza, R.O.; Bellone, C.H.; de Bellone, S.C.; Sorte, P.M.; dos Santos Teixeira, K.R. Azospirillum inoculation and nitrogen fertilization effect on grain yield and on the diversity of endophytic bacteria in the phyllosphere of rice rainfed crop. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2009, 45, 36–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Farrar, K.; Bryan, D.; Cope-Selby, N. Understanding and engineering beneficial plant–microbe interactions: Plant growth promotion in energy crops. Plant Biotech. J. 2014, 12, 1193–1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Pacovsky, R. Development and growth effects in the Sorghum–Azospirillum association. J. Appl. Bacteriol. 1990, 68, 555–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Eckert, B.; Weber, O.B.; Kirchhof, G.; Halbritter, A.; Stoffels, M.; Hartmann, A. Azospirillum doebereinerae sp. nov., a nitrogen-fixing bacterium associated with the C4-grass Miscanthus. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2001, 51, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Bashan, Y.; Holguin, G.; de-Bashan, L.E. Azospirillum-plant relationships: Physiological, molecular, agricultural, and environmental advances (1997–2003). Can. J. Microbiol. 2004, 50, 521–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Christian, D.G.; Riche, A.B.; Yates, N.E. Growth, yield and mineral content of Miscanthus × giganteus grown as a biofuel for 14 successive harvests. Ind. Crops Prod. 2008, 28, 320–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Carroll, A.; Somerville, C. Cellulosic Biofuels. Ann. Rev. Plant Biol. 2009, 60, 165–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Raaijmakers, J.; Paulitz, T.; Steinberg, C.; Alabouvette, C.; Moënne-Loccoz, Y. The rhizosphere: A playground and battlefield for soilborne pathogens and beneficial microorganisms. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 341–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Verhagen, B.W.; Glazebrook, J.; Zhu, T.; Chang, H.S.; van Loon, L.C.; Pieterse, C.M. The transcriptome of rhizobacteria-induced systemic resistance in Arabidopsis. Mol. Plant Microbe Interact. 2004, 17, 895–908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Richardson, A.; Barea, J.-M.; McNeill, A.; Prigent-Combaret, C. Acquisition of phosphorus and nitrogen in the rhizosphere and plant growth promotion by microorganisms. Plant Soil 2009, 321, 305–339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Reinhold, B.; Hurek, T.; Niemann, E.-G.; Fendrik, I. Close association of Azospirillum and diazotrophic rods with different root zones of Kallar grass. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1986, 52, 520–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Hurek, T.; Reinhold-Hurek, B.; Turner, G.L.; Bergersen, F.J. Augmented rates of respiration and efficient nitrogen fixation at nanomolar concentrations of dissolved O2 in hyperinduced Azoarcus sp. strain BH72. J. Bacteriol. 1994, 176, 4726–4733. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. James, E.K.; Olivares, F.L.; Baldani, J.I.; Döbereiner, J. Herbaspirillum, an endophytic diazotroph colonizing vascular tissue in leaves of Sorghum bicolor L. Moench. J. Exp. Bot. 1997, 48, 785–797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. James, E.K.; Reis, V.M.; Olivares, F.L.; Baldani, J.I.; Dobereiner, J. Infection of sugar cane by the nitrogen-fixing bacterium Acetobacter diazotrophicus. J. Exp. Bot. 1994, 45, 757–766. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Hungria, M.; Campo, R.; de Souza, E.M.; Pedrosa, F. Inoculation with selected strains of Azospirillum brasilense and A. lipoferum improves yields of maize and wheat in Brazil. Plant Soil 2010, 331, 413–425. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zeffa, D.M.; Perini, L., Jr.; Silva, M.B.; de Sousa, N.V.; Scapim, C.A.; Martinez de Oliveira, A.L.; Teixeira do Amaral, A., Jr.; Goncalves, L.S.A. Azospirillum brasilense promotes increases in growth and nitrogen use efficiency of maize genotypes. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0215332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Reinhold-Hurek, B.; Hurek, T. Life in grasses: Diazotrophic endophytes. Trends Microbiol. 1998, 6, 139–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pankievicz, V.C.S.; Amaral, F.P.; Santos, K.F.D.N.; Agtuca, B.; Xu, Y.; Schueller, M.J.; Arisi, A.C.M.; Steffens, M.B.R.; de Souza, E.M.; Pedrosa, F.O.; et al. Robust biological nitrogen fixation in a C4 model grass, Setaria viridis. Plant J. 2015, 81, 907–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Chen, Y.C.; Jian, Y.L.; Chiu, K.H.; Yak, H.K. Simultaneous speciation of iron (II) and iron (III) by ion chromatography with chemiluminescence detection. Anal. Sci. 2012, 28, 795–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  42. Takatera, K.; Watanabe, T. High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of iron-containing proteins with on-line inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometric detection. Anal. Sci. 1991, 7, 695–698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Morella, N.M.; Weng, F.C.-H.; Joubert, P.M.; Metcalf, C.J.E.S.; Lindow, S.; Koskella, B. Successive passaging of a plant-associated microbiome reveals robust habitat and host genotype-dependent selection. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2020, 117, 1148–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Outdoor potted plant studies. Plants were grown in 2.7 gallon pots in ProMix with Osmocote™ time-release fertilizer. Treatments were randomized during the study initiation and pots were rotated weekly.
Figure 1. Outdoor potted plant studies. Plants were grown in 2.7 gallon pots in ProMix with Osmocote™ time-release fertilizer. Treatments were randomized during the study initiation and pots were rotated weekly.
Agronomy 10 00394 g001
Figure 2. Plant growth rates measured as plant height and stem diameter over time. Plant heights were measured from top of soil to tallest point on shoots during the 2019 growing season spanning 17–55 days after germination (DAG). No significant difference was observed in growth rates across the treatment types. Panels (A–D): based on a comparison of growth rate slopes derived from linear regression analysis. Stem diameters were measured in centimeters at the second internode from the base of the stem. A significant increase in stem thickness was recorded for A. brasilense HM053 relative to non-inoculated control maize. Data (±SE) reflects N = 12 biological replicates. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p < 0.05) using Student paired t-test comparing treated to non-treated control plant stems when measured at the second internode, in which, at 28 and 55 days after germination, A. brasilense HM053-inoculated maize exhibited a significantly increased stem thickness relative to non-inoculated control, suggesting the biologic improved plant growth.
Figure 2. Plant growth rates measured as plant height and stem diameter over time. Plant heights were measured from top of soil to tallest point on shoots during the 2019 growing season spanning 17–55 days after germination (DAG). No significant difference was observed in growth rates across the treatment types. Panels (A–D): based on a comparison of growth rate slopes derived from linear regression analysis. Stem diameters were measured in centimeters at the second internode from the base of the stem. A significant increase in stem thickness was recorded for A. brasilense HM053 relative to non-inoculated control maize. Data (±SE) reflects N = 12 biological replicates. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p < 0.05) using Student paired t-test comparing treated to non-treated control plant stems when measured at the second internode, in which, at 28 and 55 days after germination, A. brasilense HM053-inoculated maize exhibited a significantly increased stem thickness relative to non-inoculated control, suggesting the biologic improved plant growth.
Agronomy 10 00394 g002
Figure 3. Leaf chlorophyll content and leaf thickness as a function of treatment type. Panel A: The 3-week-old lab plants inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense HM053 showed significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content compared to non-inoculated control plants, while A. brasilense ipdC inoculated plants showed significantly reduced chlorophyll content relative to non-inoculated control plants. Panel B: Leaf thickness measurements carried out at the end of the 2019 growing season showed that plants inoculated with A. brasilense HM053 had significantly thicker leaves compared to control plants. Data reflects N = 12 biological replicates in both panels for each treatment, with error bars indicating ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-test between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Figure 3. Leaf chlorophyll content and leaf thickness as a function of treatment type. Panel A: The 3-week-old lab plants inoculated with Azospirillum brasilense HM053 showed significant increases in leaf chlorophyll content compared to non-inoculated control plants, while A. brasilense ipdC inoculated plants showed significantly reduced chlorophyll content relative to non-inoculated control plants. Panel B: Leaf thickness measurements carried out at the end of the 2019 growing season showed that plants inoculated with A. brasilense HM053 had significantly thicker leaves compared to control plants. Data reflects N = 12 biological replicates in both panels for each treatment, with error bars indicating ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-test between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (*p < 0.05, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Agronomy 10 00394 g003
Figure 4. Effect of treatment on corn seed yield. Seed yield was quantified as number of kernels per cob. In both the 2018 and 2019 seasons, plants inoculated with A. brasilense HM053 bacteria showed significantly enhanced kernel yields compared to control treatments. Chemical auxin treatment showed significantly enhanced kernel yield as well, while A. brasilense ipd C and control maize were not significantly different in yield from one another. Data was normalized to the average dry kernel mass in controls and reflect N = 12 biological replicates for each treatment. Panel A: data from the 2018 growing season; Panel B: data from the 2019 growing season). Error bars indicate ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-tests between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Figure 4. Effect of treatment on corn seed yield. Seed yield was quantified as number of kernels per cob. In both the 2018 and 2019 seasons, plants inoculated with A. brasilense HM053 bacteria showed significantly enhanced kernel yields compared to control treatments. Chemical auxin treatment showed significantly enhanced kernel yield as well, while A. brasilense ipd C and control maize were not significantly different in yield from one another. Data was normalized to the average dry kernel mass in controls and reflect N = 12 biological replicates for each treatment. Panel A: data from the 2018 growing season; Panel B: data from the 2019 growing season). Error bars indicate ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-tests between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Agronomy 10 00394 g004
Figure 5. Seed iron content as total iron, ferric iron, and ferrous iron as a function of treatment type. Panel A: data on seed ferrous (Fe2+) concentration relative to total iron from the 2018 harvest. There was a positive correlation across all treatment types between ferrous iron and total iron content in maize seed. Panel B: data on seed ferric iron (Fe3+) concentration relative to the total iron. There is no strong correlation between changing total iron content and ferric iron in maize seed kernels.
Figure 5. Seed iron content as total iron, ferric iron, and ferrous iron as a function of treatment type. Panel A: data on seed ferrous (Fe2+) concentration relative to total iron from the 2018 harvest. There was a positive correlation across all treatment types between ferrous iron and total iron content in maize seed. Panel B: data on seed ferric iron (Fe3+) concentration relative to the total iron. There is no strong correlation between changing total iron content and ferric iron in maize seed kernels.
Agronomy 10 00394 g005
Figure 6. Seed iron-ferritin content as a function of treatment type. All treatment types showed significantly greater concentration of ferritin protein in maize seed relative to control with greatest elevation observed in the A. brasilense HM053-inoculated maize kernels. Data reflects N = 4 biological replicates for each treatment with error bars indicating ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-test between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Figure 6. Seed iron-ferritin content as a function of treatment type. All treatment types showed significantly greater concentration of ferritin protein in maize seed relative to control with greatest elevation observed in the A. brasilense HM053-inoculated maize kernels. Data reflects N = 4 biological replicates for each treatment with error bars indicating ±SE. Paired comparisons were made using the Student t-test between single treatments and non-inoculated control plants. Asterisks indicate significant differences (**p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001) in these comparisons.
Agronomy 10 00394 g006

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Scott, S.; Housh, A.; Powell, G.; Anstaett, A.; Gerheart, A.; Benoit, M.; Wilder, S.; Schueller, M.; Ferrieri, R. Crop Yield, Ferritin and Fe(II) boosted by Azospirillum brasilense (HM053) in Corn. Agronomy 2020, 10, 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030394

AMA Style

Scott S, Housh A, Powell G, Anstaett A, Gerheart A, Benoit M, Wilder S, Schueller M, Ferrieri R. Crop Yield, Ferritin and Fe(II) boosted by Azospirillum brasilense (HM053) in Corn. Agronomy. 2020; 10(3):394. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030394

Chicago/Turabian Style

Scott, Stephanie, Alexandra Housh, Garren Powell, Ashley Anstaett, Amber Gerheart, Mary Benoit, Stacy Wilder, Michael Schueller, and Richard Ferrieri. 2020. "Crop Yield, Ferritin and Fe(II) boosted by Azospirillum brasilense (HM053) in Corn" Agronomy 10, no. 3: 394. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10030394

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop