« This week's picks | Main | Would IEEE really sponsor a fake scientific conference? »

Beneficial infections?

Endophytes are microbes (often fungi) that infect plants without causing obvious disease. Some endophytes appear to benefit their plant hosts. How do they do this, and why? I will introduce these questions before discussing this week's paper,(Redman et al. 2011) which shows dramatic benefits to rice from particular endophytes.

How might endophytes benefit plants? Mycorrhizal fungi extend out into the soil, where they can get phosphorus and other resources to give their plant hosts. In contrast, endophytes are typically found completely inside the plant, so any resources they "give" the plant must be modified versions of resources they got from the plant in the first place. Nitrogen is a possible exception -- rhizobia bacteria convert atmospheric nitrogen to forms plants can use, but the oxygen-sensitivity of the key enzyme apparently restricts this process to controlled-oxygen environments, such as legume root nodules.

Although endophytes don't have access to external resources, they can make chemicals the plant can't, such as toxins that protect the plant from being eaten. Or, they might make chemicals that the plant could make itself, but in larger amounts than the plant would otherwise make, at least at a particular time and place. For example, endophytes can make plant hormones, which could stimulate growth.

But what do we mean by "stimulate?" If all of the phosphorus, nitrogen, and carbon in the endophyte comes from the plant, any stimulation must result from the plant using its own resources differently than it would without the endophyte. In other words, the endophyte is manipulating the plant. For whose benefit? That leads to my second question.

Why do endophytes benefit plants? That is, why have endophyte strains that benefit their hosts more sometimes out-competed strains that benefit their hosts less, over the course of endophyte evolution? Mutant endophyte strains that don't make plant-defense toxins or (beneficial?) plant-manipulating hormones must arise. Making these chemicals uses resources the endophyte could otherwise use to reproduce more inside the plant. For strains that make beneficial chemicals to persist over evolution, they must have some advantage that outweighs this cost. I can imagine several ways in which beneficial endophytes might have an advantage.

The first is "group selection", with the group being all the endophytes inside an individual plant. Plants with more-beneficial endophytes grow more than plants with less-beneficial endophytes, and larger plants support more endophytes. If each plant contains only a single genotype of endophyte, this mechanism should work well. But defense of cacao leaves from pathogens was provided by a diverse community of endophytes.(Arnold et al. 2003) If a healthier shared host was the only benefit each endophyte received, wouldn't "free-rider" mutants that invest less in host defense tend to spread?(Denison et al., 2003b; Kiers and Denison 2008)

Maybe the endophytes make antifungal toxins mainly to kill each other, and defense against fungal pathogens is just a valuable side-effect. Such "byproduct mutualism" is an example of the second reason that more-beneficial endophytes may persist.

The third hypothesis is a minor variation on by-product mutualism. Endophyte infection is so common that plants may have evolved to depend on products produced by endophytes, even if the plants (or their ancestors) could produce those products themselves. For example, why might a plant be genetically programmed to make too little of some hormone that would maximize its reproduction? Perhaps because most of its ancestors were infected by endophytes producing that same hormone, so for the plant to make even more of it would have reduced fitness.

Third, maybe individual plants containing multiple strains of endophyte somehow favor the most-beneficial strains, reversing the benefit "free-riders" would otherwise have. Host sanctions against less-beneficial rhizobia(Kiers et al. 2003, Simms et al. 2006, Oono et al. 2011) and mycorrhizal fungi(Bever et al. 2009) have been reported, but is anything similar possible with endophytes?

Fourth, some apparent benefits to plants from endophytes may be misleading. Increased root growth may look like a benefit, but remember that the carbon and nitrogen in that root come from the plant, not the endophyte. So, at least in the short term, increased root growth usually comes at the expense of decreased shoot growth or more rapid depletion of reserves. For example, root-associated microbes that increase root growth of wheat can decrease final yield.(Kapulnik et al. 1987) Even if an endophyte-induced change in resource allocation increases seed production of plants growing individually in pots in a greenhouse, the same change might decrease seed production under competitive conditions in the field.

Now to this week's paper.(Redman et al. 2011) PLoS One is open access, so you can read the whole paper on-line. Regina Redman and colleagues inoculated rice with three different fungal endophytes, which had been isolated from plants growing under salt- or temperature-stress conditions. The fungi produced the plant hormone, IAA (auxin), at least in culture. This is consistent with manipulation of the host as a mechanism, although they didn't detect IAA in the plants themselves.

Although their focus was on stress tolerance, results under nonstress conditions were particularly interesting. Right after germination, infected and noninfected seedlings look similar (their Fig. 2). But after three days, the dry weight of three-day old seedlings not infected with endophytes averaged 60 milligrams (dry weight), while endophyte-infected seedlings averaged 105 mgDW (their Fig. 1). Both weights must include contributions from early photosynthesis, since rice seeds typically weigh only 20-30 mg. Somehow, the endophyte must have increased photosynthesis.

But how could the endophyte increase photosynthesis, if all the resources in the endophyte came from the plant? Actually, right after inoculation, the endophyte would still have some nitrogen and phosphorus acquired during culture. But would they have enough to share to significantly enhance early seedling growth?

Alternatively, the endophyte might have manipulated the plant into using its own resources differently than it would have without the endophyte. (We could call this manipulation "signaling" if the endophyte is providing the plant with useful information for mutual benefit,(Ratcliff and Denison 2011) but what information would an endophyte entirely inside a plant have that the plant itself wouldn't?)

For example, plants can photosynthesize faster if they open the stomatal pores in their leaves more, but that also uses up the soil water around their roots faster, increasing the risk of running out. Could an endophyte-induced increase in stomatal opening over-ride the plant's own water-use strategies? Sure, but what are the chances that the endophyte's strategy is better for the plant? That would seem unlikely, at least under the conditions where the plant evolved. But we wouldn't necessarily expect plant strategies that evolved in the field to be ideal in the greenhouse. A small change in either direction would have a 50% chance of being an improvement. Maybe the endophyte got lucky.

I've suggested increased stomatal opening as one way the endophyte could have increased seedling photosynthesis. Later in growth, however, endophyte-infected plants used less water than those without endophytes and took longer to wilt after watering (their Fig. 3). It's not clear, however, how much of the water use went through stomata, as opposed to evaporating from the soil surface. The endophyte-infected plants were much bigger than the noninfected plants by then, so they would have shaded the soil surface more.

As an alternative to greater stomatal opening, that about allocation to roots? Photos suggest that the noninfected seedlings initially invested more resources in shoots than in roots, whereas the endophyte-infected ones invested more in roots. If the endophytes infect mainly via the root, it's easy to understand why they might manipulate the plant to make more root. But why would plants have evolved to make too little root, when not infected by endophytes? Again, I see two likely possibilities. Maybe the plant's greater allocation to shoot is optimal for the conditions where it evolved(Denison et al. 2003, Denison in press) (germinating underwater in rice fields) but this gives too little root growth under the experimental conditions used in this study. This seems the most likely explanation. Alternatively, rice may be adapted to the presence of endophytes that produce similar hormones to those used in this study, so they have evolved to make hormone amounts that are suboptimal when not infected by endophytes.

Late in growth there were differences between treatments in reactive oxygen species, and the endophyte-infected plants had higher seed yields. The paper also shows beneficial effects on rice growth under low-temperature stress. But I would like to understand the benefits of the endophyte to three-day-old unstressed seedlings before getting into such details.

For practical applications, a more-complete understanding of how endophytes benefit plants would be useful, either to help us identify even better endophytes or to breed crops that get the same benefits with whatever endophytes they usually have now. Understanding endophyte evolution could be equally important. If it is some form of group selection that gives more-beneficial endophytes an edge over free-riders, can we maintain that process in agriculture? If some plant are imposing sanctions on less-beneficial endophytes, we certainly want to preserve that plant trait in our crop-breeding programs, or look for it in wild species and traditional crop cultivars.(Denison et al., 2003a, Denison in press) On the other hand, if endophytes are manipulating their plant hosts in ways that always benefit the endophyte, but which benefit the plant only under certain conditions, then we need to test endophytes under conditions more similar to how the crops will be grown in the field. In any case, this is a very interesting paper which (with related papers from the same group) could lead to exciting new approaches to improving crop production.


LITERATURE CITED

Arnold A. E., L. C. Mejia, D. Kyllo, E. I. Rojas, Z. Maynard, N. Robbins, and E. A. Herre. 2003. Fungal endophytes limit pathogen damage in a tropical tree. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 100:15649-15654.

Bever J. D., S. C. Richardson, B. M. Lawrence, J. Holmes, and M. Watson. 2009. Preferential allocation to beneficial symbiont with spatial structure maintains mycorrhizal mutualism. Ecology Letters 12:13-21.

Denison R. F. in press. Darwinian agriculture: how understanding evolution can improve agriculture. Princeton University Press, Princeton.

Denison R. F., E. T. Kiers, and S. A. West. 2003a. Darwinian agriculture: when can humans find solutions beyond the reach of natural selection? Quarterly Review of Biology 78:145-168.

Denison R. F., C. Bledsoe, M. L. Kahn, F. O'Gara, E. L. Simms, and L. S. Thomashow. 2003b. Cooperation in the rhizosphere and the "free rider" problem. Ecology 84:838-845.

Kapulnik Y., Y. Okon, and Y. Henis. 1987. Yield response of spring wheat cultivars (Triticum aestivum and T. turgidum) to inoculation with Azospirillum brasilense under field conditions. Biology and Fertility of Soils 4:27-35.

Kiers E. T., R. F. Denison. 2008. Sanctions, cooperation, and the stability of plant-rhizosphere mutualisms. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 39:215-236.

Kiers E. T., R. A. Rousseau, S. A. West, and R. F. Denison. 2003. Host sanctions and the legume-rhizobium mutualism. Nature 425:78-81.

Oono R., C. G. Anderson, and R. F. Denison. 2011. Failure to fix nitrogen by non-reproductive symbiotic rhizobia triggers host sanctions that reduce fitness of their reproductive clonemates. Proceedings of the Royal Society B :doi: 10.1098/rspb.2010.2193.

Ratcliff W. C., R. F. Denison. 2011. Alternative actions for antibiotics. Science 332:547-548.

Redman R. S., Y. O. Kim, C. J. D. A. Woodward, C. Greer, L. Espino, S. L. Doty, and R. J. Rodriguez. 2011. Increased Fitness of Rice Plants to Abiotic Stress Via Habitat Adapted Symbiosis: A Strategy for Mitigating Impacts of Climate Change. PLoS ONE :e14823.

Simms E. L., D. L. Taylor, J. Povich, R. P. Shefferson, J. L. Sachs, M. Urbina, and Y. Tausczik. 2006. An empirical test of partner choice mechanisms in a wild legume-rhizobium interaction. Proceedings of the Royal Society B 273:77-81.


Post a comment

(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)


Type the characters you see in the picture above.