01.02.2013 Views

Page 2 Plant-Bacteria Interactions Edited by Iqbal Ahmad, John ...

Page 2 Plant-Bacteria Interactions Edited by Iqbal Ahmad, John ...

Page 2 Plant-Bacteria Interactions Edited by Iqbal Ahmad, John ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

5.7 Critical Gaps in PGPR Research and Future Directionsj101<br />

PGP traits. One possible approach may involve isolation of PGPR from the indigenous<br />

soil–plant system and use them in the same agroclimatic conditions. The<br />

selection of PGPR may be based on number and types of PGP traits present.<br />

Therefore, potential PGPR adapted to particular soil and plant soil conditions and<br />

harboring multiple PGP traits should be selected and evaluated in field conditions.<br />

In order to determine the successful establishment of a PGPR in field conditions, its<br />

identity and activities must be continuously monitored (Table 5.4). Considering the<br />

cost of molecular techniques, more simple and reliable methods must be developed<br />

for rapid detection and monitoring of inoculant strains in the rhizosphere.<br />

The extensive research data generated on plant growth promoting rhizobacteria<br />

clearly indicate that the plant–bacteria interaction leads to rhizosphere colonization<br />

and its influence on plant health is a complex process. Various mechanisms of plant<br />

growth promotion, both direct and indirect, <strong>by</strong> diazotrophic bacteria and their<br />

interactive effects have been investigated. However, evidence for the contribution<br />

of individual mechanisms of plant growth promotion is less prevalent. What is<br />

urgently needed in this direction is listed in the following:<br />

(i) Develop more productive analytical and bioassay-based techniques for the<br />

identification and uptake of microbial products/nutrients <strong>by</strong> plant roots.<br />

Table 5.4 Techniques used for the detection and quantification of inoculated PGPR.<br />

Techniques References<br />

Classical and immunological<br />

Selective media containing the appropriate toxic substances<br />

(antibiotics, heavy metals and herbicides)<br />

Immuno fluorescence colony staining approach<br />

(enumeration of colonies marked with antibodies conjugated<br />

with fluorescein isothiocyanate)<br />

Immunomagnetic attraction (enumeration of bacteria captured with a<br />

supermagnet)<br />

Molecular<br />

Specific rRNA probes, coupled with PCR [using probes labeled<br />

with a fluorochrome (hybridization in situ coupled with<br />

confocal laser microscopy)<br />

16S rRNA probe (dot blot hybridization of a directly isolated<br />

nucleic acid mixture)<br />

Marker genes (quantified <strong>by</strong> colorimetry): lacZ (b-galactosidase,<br />

blue colonies), gusA (b-glucuronidase, indigo colonies), xylE<br />

(catechol 2,3-dioxygenase, yellow colonies), tfdA<br />

(2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetate, red colonies)<br />

Lux (luciferase) (bioluminescence quantified <strong>by</strong> charge-coupled<br />

device cameras or visualized in planta), GFP (green fluorescent<br />

protein detected in situ with confocal laser microscopy or<br />

epifluorescence microscopy), inaZ (ice-nucleation protein<br />

quantified <strong>by</strong> freezing assay)<br />

[214,222]<br />

[212]<br />

[213]<br />

[214–216]<br />

[23,217–221]

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!