Book contents
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Role of Endophytes in Growth and Biotic and Abiotic Stress Resistance
- Part III Diversity and Community Ecology of Endophytes
- Part IV Endophytes for Novel Biomolecules and In Vitro Methods
- 13 Endophytic Fungi: A Quintessential Source of Potential Bioactive Compounds
- 14 Enhancing Secondary Metabolite Production in Medicinal Plants Using Endophytic Elicitors: A Case Study of Centella asiatica (Apiaceae) and Asiaticoside
- 15 In Vitro Methods for Plant–Microbe Interaction and Biocontrol Studies in European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)
- Part V Application and Commercialisation of Endophytes in Crop Production
- Index
- References
15 - In Vitro Methods for Plant–Microbe Interaction and Biocontrol Studies in European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)
from Part IV - Endophytes for Novel Biomolecules and In Vitro Methods
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 April 2019
Book contents
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Endophytes for a Growing World
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Role of Endophytes in Growth and Biotic and Abiotic Stress Resistance
- Part III Diversity and Community Ecology of Endophytes
- Part IV Endophytes for Novel Biomolecules and In Vitro Methods
- 13 Endophytic Fungi: A Quintessential Source of Potential Bioactive Compounds
- 14 Enhancing Secondary Metabolite Production in Medicinal Plants Using Endophytic Elicitors: A Case Study of Centella asiatica (Apiaceae) and Asiaticoside
- 15 In Vitro Methods for Plant–Microbe Interaction and Biocontrol Studies in European Ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.)
- Part V Application and Commercialisation of Endophytes in Crop Production
- Index
- References
Summary
In vitro tissue culture systems are required for plant–microbe interaction studies on European ash, Fraxinus excelsior. Methods are needed for plant micropropagation and for physiological experimentation including pathogen/resistance testing and biocontrol studies. For example, systems are required for experiments on ash dieback disease, caused by the ascomycete fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, that is killing ash plantations and natural populations across its native range. Methods are also needed to optimise the number of endophytes cultured from ash tissue and to taxonomically identify them. We present endophyte isolation protocols and media for ash, provide an optimised DNA barcoding procedure for endophyte identification and describe in vitro tissue culture methods suitable for ash–microbe interaction studies in both roots and shoots. Methods for both embryo culture and seed culture (with precutting) and for the bulking up of genotypes via single node culture are outlined. We also discuss the potential of tissue culture for establishing microbe/endophyte-free cultures.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Endophytes for a Growing World , pp. 328 - 340Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Bakys, R. (2013). Dieback of Fraxinus in Baltic sea region. Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, Uppsala, pp. 1–48.Google Scholar
Baral, H.-O., Queloz, V. and Hosoya, T. (2014). Hymenoscyphus fraxineus, the correct scientific name for the fungus causing ash dieback in Europe. IMA Fungus, 5, 79–80.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Barklund, P. (2005). Ash dieback sweeping over south and central Sweden. SkogsEko, 3,11–13. (In Swedish.)Google Scholar
Beekwilder, J., Murphy, B. R., Mathuna, E. M.,Barry, A. and Hodkinson, T. R. (2019). Isolation, diversity and potential use of endophytes in the biomass and bioenergy crop Miscanthus. In Endophytes for a Growing World, ed. Hodkinson, T. R., Doohan, F. M., Saunders, M. J. and Murphy, B. R.. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, Chapter 9.Google Scholar
Begerow, D., Nilsson, H., Unterseher, M. and Maier, W. (2010). Current state and perspectives of fungal DNA barcoding and rapid identification procedures. Applied Microbiology and Biotechnology, 87, 99–108.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brome, A. and Mitchell, R. J. (2017). Ecological Impacts of Ash Dieback and Mitigation Methods. Research Note. London: Forestry Commission UK, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar
Chanway, C. P. (1996). Endophytes: they’re not just fungi! Canadian Journal Botany, 74, 321–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DAFM (n.d.). Ash Dieback (Chalara). www.agriculture.gov.ie/forestservice/treediseases/ashdiebackchalara/Google Scholar
Douglas, G. C., Pliura, A., Dufour, J. et al. (2013). Common ash (Fraxinus excelsior L.). In Forest Tree Breeding in Europe: Current State of the Art and Perspectives, Vol. 2, ed. Pâques, L. E. Springer, Managing Forest Ecosystems, 25, 403–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forestry Commission UK (2015). Chalara dieback: managing ash trees and woodlands. www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-92pjkxGoogle Scholar
Gross, A., Holdenrieder, O., Pautasso, M., Queloz, V. and Sieber, T. N. (2014). Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus, the causal agent of European ash dieback. Molecular Plant Pathology, 15, 5–21.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawksworth, D. L. (2001). The magnitude of fungal diversity: the 1.5 million species estimated revisited. Mycological Research, 105, 1422–1432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hallmann, J., Quadt-Hallmann, A., Mahaffee, W. F. and Kloepper, J. W. (1997). Bacterial endophytes in agricultural crops. Canadian Journal of Microbiology, 43, 895–914.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardoim, P. R., Overbeek, L. S., Berg, G. et al. (2015). The hidden world within plants: ecological and evolutionary considerations for defining functioning of microbial endophytes. Microbiology and Molecular Biology Reviews, 79, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hodkinson, T. R. (2018). Evolution and taxonomy of the grasses (Poaceae): a model family for the study of species-rich groups. Annual Plant Reviews Online, doi: 10.1002/9781119312994.apr0622.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hodkinson, T. R., Waldren, S., Parnell, J. A. N. et al. (2007). DNA banking for plant breeding, biotechnology and biodiversity evaluation. Journal of Plant Research, 120, 17–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Janse, J. D. (1981). The bacterial disease of ash (Fraxinus excelsior), caused by Pseudomonas syringae subsp. savastanoi pv. fraxini. European Journal of Forest Pathololgy, 11, 306–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kosawang, C., Amby, B. D., Bussaban, B. et al. (2018). Fungal communities associated with species of Fraxinus tolerant to ash dieback, and their potential for biological control. Fungal Biology, 122, 110–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, T. (2006). Chalara fraxinea sp. nov. associated with dieback of ash (Fraxinus excelsior) in Poland. Forest Pathology, 36, 264–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, T. and Holdenrieder, O. (2009a). Pathogenicity of Chalara fraxinea. Forest Pathology, 39, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, T. and Holdenrieder, O. (2009b). The teleomorph of Chalara fraxinea, the causal agent of ash dieback. Forest Pathology, 39, 304–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kowalski, T. and Łukomska, A. (2005). Studies on Fraxinus excelsior L. dieback in Włoszczowa Forest Unit stands. Acta Agrobotanica, 59, 429–440.Google Scholar
Kowalski, T., Bilański, P. and Kraj, W. (2017). Pathogenicity of fungi associated with ash dieback towards Fraxinus excelsior. Plant Pathology, 66, 1228–1238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kräutler, K. and Kirisits, T. (2012). The ash dieback pathogen Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus is associated with leaf symptoms on ash species (Fraxinus spp.). Journal of Agricultural Extension and Rural Development, 4, 261–265.Google Scholar
Link, H. F. (1809). Observationes in ordines plantarum naturales, disserta- tio prima, complectens anandrarum ordines Epiphytas, Mucedines, Gas- tromycos et Fungos. Berlin, Germany: Der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin.Google Scholar
Marshall, D., Tunali, B. and Nelson, L. R. (1999). Occurrence of fungal endophytes in species of wild Triticum. Crop Science, 39, 1507–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moore, D., Robson, G. D. and Trinci, A. P. J. (2011). 21st Century Guidebook to Fungi. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Murphy, B. R., Batke, S. P., Doohan, F. M. and Hodkinson, T. R. (2015). Media manipulations and the culture of beneficial fungal root endophytes. International Journal of Biology, 7, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nilsson, R. H., Kristiansson, E., Ryberg, M., Hallenberg, N. and Larsson, K.-H. (2008). Intraspecific ITS variability in the Kingdom Fungi as expressed in the international sequence databases and its implications for molecular species identification. Evolutionary Bioinformatics, 4, 193–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Hanlon, K. A., Knorr, K., Jørgensen, L. N., Nicolaisen, M. and Boelt, B. (2012). Exploring the potential of symbiotic fungal endophytes in cereal disease suppression. Biological Control, 63, 69–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrini, O. (1991). Fungal endophytes of tree leaves. In Microbial Ecology of Leaves. ed. Andrews, J. H. and Hirano, S. S. New York, NY: Springer Verlag, pp. 179–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przybył, K. (2002). Fungi associated with necrotic apical parts of Fraxinus excelsior shoots. Forest Pathology, 32, 387–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sansford, C. E. (2013). Pest risk analysis for Hymenoscyphus pseudoalbidus (anamorph Chalara fraxinea) for the UK and the Republic of Ireland. Forestry Commission, 1–128.Google Scholar
Schlegel, M., Dubach, V., Buol, L. and Sieber, T. N. (2016). Effects of endophytic fungi on the ash dieback pathogen. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 92, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tamura, K., Peterson, D., Peterson, N. et al. (2011). MEGA5: Molecular evolutionary genetic analysis using maximum likelihood, evolutionary distance, and maximum parsimony methods. Molecular Biology and Evolution, 28, 2731–2739.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thomasset, M., Fernández-Manjarrés, J. F., Douglas, G. C., Frascaria-Lacoste, N. and Hodkinson, T. R. (2011). Hybridisation, introgression and climate change: a case study for the tree genus Fraxinus (Oleaceae). In Climate Change, Ecology and Systematics, ed. T. R. Hodkinson, M. B. Jones, S. Waldren and J. A. N. Parnell. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 320–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomasset, M., Hodkinson, T. R., Restoux, G. et al. (2014). Thank you for not flowering: conservation genetics and gene flow analysis of native and non-native populations of Fraxinus (Oleaceae) in Ireland. Heredity, 112, 596–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Timmermann, V., Borja, I., Hietala, A. M., Kirisits, T. and Solheim, H. (2011). Ash dieback: pathogen spread and diurnal patterns of ascospore dispersal, with special emphasis on Norway. OEPP/EOPP Bulletin, 41, 14–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, T. J., Bruns, T. D., Lee, S. and Taylor, J. (1990). Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. In PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications, ed. Innis, M. A, Gelfand, D. H, Sninsky, J. J and White, T. J. New York: Academic Press, pp. 315–322.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by