Paper · 2012 · Letters in Applied Microbiology

Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 expressing an exogenous 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase increases its nodulation abilities and chickpea plant resistance to soil constraints

F.X. Nascimento; C. Brígido; B.R. Glick; et al.

6
claims
6
verbatim quotes
75
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

AIMS: Our goal was to understand the symbiotic behaviour of a Mesorhizobium strain expressing an exogenous 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase, which was used as an inoculant of chickpea (Cicer arietinum) plants growing in soil. METHODS AND RESULTS: Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) was tested for its plant growth promotion abilities on two chickpea cultivars (ELMO and CHK3226) growing in nonsterilized soil that displayed biotic and abiotic constraints to plant growth. When compared to its wild-type form, the M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) strain showed an increased nodulation performance of c. 125 and 180% and increased nodule weight of c. 45 and 147% in chickpea cultivars ELMO and CHK3226, respectively. Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) was also able to augment the total biomass of both chickpea plant cultivars by c. 45% and to reduce chickpea root rot disease susceptibility. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained indicate that the production of ACC deaminase under free living conditions by Mesorhizobium strains increases the nodulation, plant growth abilities and biocontrol potential of these strains. SIGNIFICANCE AND IMPACT OF THE STUDY: This is the first study regarding the use of a transformed rhizobial strain expressing an exogenous ACC deaminase in different plant cultivars growing in soil. Hence, obtaining Mesorhizobium strains with high ACC deaminase activity is a matter of extreme importance for the development of inoculants for field applications.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 6

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered M. ciceri increased nodulation performance in ELMO chickpea by c. 125%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
ELMOe0
Treatment
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
nodulation performancee0
Direction
increasede0
Value
c. 125e0
Comparator
wild-type forme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When compared to its wild-type form, the M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) strain showed an increased nodulation performance of c. 125 and 180% and increased nodule weight of c. 45 and 147% in chickpea cultivars ELMO and CHK3226, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered M. ciceri increased nodulation performance in CHK3226 chickpea by 180%%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
CHK3226e0
Treatment
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
nodulation performancee0
Direction
increasede0
Value
180%e0
Comparator
wild-type forme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When compared to its wild-type form, the M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) strain showed an increased nodulation performance of c. 125 and 180% and increased nodule weight of c. 45 and 147% in chickpea cultivars ELMO and CHK3226, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered M. ciceri increased nodule weight in ELMO chickpea by c. 45%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
ELMOe0
Treatment
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
nodule weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
c. 45e0
Comparator
wild-type forme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When compared to its wild-type form, the M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) strain showed an increased nodulation performance of c. 125 and 180% and increased nodule weight of c. 45 and 147% in chickpea cultivars ELMO and CHK3226, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered M. ciceri increased nodule weight in CHK3226 chickpea by 147%%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Material
CHK3226e0
Treatment
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
nodule weighte0
Direction
increasede0
Value
147%e0
Comparator
wild-type forme0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“When compared to its wild-type form, the M. ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) strain showed an increased nodulation performance of c. 125 and 180% and increased nodule weight of c. 45 and 147% in chickpea cultivars ELMO and CHK3226, respectively.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 490–724 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered Mesorhizobium increased biomass of both chickpea cultivars by about 45%.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
total biomass of both chickpea plant cultivarse0
Direction
augmente0
Value
c. 45%e0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) was also able to augment the total biomass of both chickpea plant cultivars by c. 45%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–846 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Engineered Mesorhizobium reduced chickpea root rot susceptibility.

Taxon
chickpeaCicer arietinume0
Treatment
Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)e0
Interactor
Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC)Mesorhizobium cicerie0symbiont
Outcome
chickpea root rot disease susceptibilitye0
Direction
reducee0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Cicer arietinum
Cicer arietinum · TaxonSanjay Acharya · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Mesorhizobium ciceri LMS-1 (pRKACC) was also able to augment the total biomass of both chickpea plant cultivars by c. 45% and to reduce chickpea root rot disease susceptibility.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 725–902 · show in text ↑

Mesorhizobium ciceri · disease · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 papers →

Mesorhizobium ciceri · growth · Cicer arietinum (chickpea)Results agree

12 papers: 12 positive, 0 negative or no effect

11 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

8 papers more in this group

See all 12 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.