Paper · 2022 · Frontiers in Plant Science

Heritable priming by Trichoderma: A sustainable approach for wheat protection against Bipolaris sorokiniana

Menka Tiwari; Rajat Singh; Rintu Jha; et al.

6
claims
12
verbatim quotes
31
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by

Abstract

Crop plants encounter a variety of biotic challenges in the field and faces significant reduction in crop yield. In the current scenario of an ever increasing global population, there is an urgent need to protect plant health by using sustainable approach to maximize the crop productivity and to mitigate the food demands. Nowadays, we mostly rely on chemical crop protection techniques, which are causing a number of environmental and health difficulties. Defence priming is a chemical-free, eco-friendly, and sustainable strategy of crop protection, which is also called “green vaccination. In the present study, for the first time, we used Trichoderma as a priming agent to protect wheat crop from spot blotch disease. We have established Trichoderma -mediated defence priming in wheat against Bipolaris sorokiniana for sustainable crop improvement. We have characterised the morphological, disease phenotype, biochemical and yield parameters of Trichoderma -primed and non-primed wheat under disease pressure. Trichoderma -primed plants were found to be more protected against B. sorokiniana as compared to non-primed plants. Biochemical studies indicated that there is no direct defence response after priming stimulus but the defence response was activated only after triggering stimulus in terms of enhanced defence metabolites in primed plants as compared to non-primed plants. In the present study, since defence was activated only when required, that is under disease pressure, there was no unnecessary allocation of resources towards defence. Hence, no yield penalty was shown in primed plants as compared to control. We further evaluated the inheritance of primed state to the next generation and found that progeny of primed parents also performed better than progeny of non-primed parents under disease pressure in terms of protection from B. sorokiniana as well as yield performance. This strategy has the potential to protect crop without any yield penalty and causing environmental degradation. Our research findings indicate that Trichoderma -mediated defence priming could be an alternative approach for improving wheat productivity under biotic stress. To be our best knowledge, this is the first documented report for the Trichoderma- mediated defence priming and induced inheritance in wheat plant. This study will open new arenas in sustainable crop protection strategies for the exploitation of defence priming in crop plants.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by. 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

Trichoderma priming improved protection from B. sorokiniana relative to unprimed plants.

Treatment
Trichoderma -primede0
Interactor
B. sorokinianaBipolaris sorokinianae0pathogen
Second interactor
TrichodermaTrichodermae0biocontrol_agent
Outcome
protected against B. sorokinianae0
Direction
more protectede0
Comparator
non-primed plantse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bipolaris sorokiniana
Bipolaris sorokiniana · InteractorJie-Hao Ou · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗
Trichoderma
Trichoderma · Second interactor · picture of the genus (one of its species)US Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Systematic Botany and Mycology Laboratory, [1] · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“Trichoderma -primed plants were found to be more protected against B. sorokiniana as compared to non-primed plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1015–1129 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Priming alone did not produce a direct defence response.

Treatment
priming stimuluse0
Outcome
direct defence responsee0
Direction
noe0

Not reportedComparator

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“there is no direct defence response after priming stimulus”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1166–1224 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

After disease triggering, primed plants had enhanced defence metabolites relative to unprimed plants.

Treatment
primed plantse0
Outcome
defence metabolitese0
Direction
enhancede0
Comparator
non-primed plantse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“enhanced defence metabolites in primed plants as compared to non-primed plants”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1307–1385 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Primed plants showed no yield penalty relative to controls.

Treatment
primed plantse0
Outcome
yield penaltye0
Direction
noe0
Comparator
controle0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“no yield penalty was shown in primed plants as compared to control”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1562–1628 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Progeny of primed parents had better protection from B. sorokiniana than progeny of unprimed parents.

Treatment
progeny of primed parentse0
Interactor
B. sorokinianaBipolaris sorokinianae0pathogen
Outcome
protection from B. sorokinianae0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
progeny of non-primed parentse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bipolaris sorokiniana
Bipolaris sorokiniana · InteractorJie-Hao Ou · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“progeny of primed parents also performed better than progeny of non-primed parents under disease pressure in terms of protection from B. sorokiniana as well as yield performance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1721–1898 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Progeny of primed parents had better yield performance under disease pressure.

Treatment
progeny of primed parentse0
Interactor
B. sorokinianaBipolaris sorokinianae0pathogen
Outcome
yield performancee0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
progeny of non-primed parentse0

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

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Bipolaris sorokiniana
Bipolaris sorokiniana · InteractorJie-Hao Ou · CC BY 4.0 · iNaturalist ↗

Verbatim

e0

“progeny of primed parents also performed better than progeny of non-primed parents under disease pressure in terms of protection from B. sorokiniana as well as yield performance”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1721–1898 · show in text ↑
t0

“wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–66 · show in text ↑

Trichoderma · Bipolaris sorokiniana · Triticum aestivum (wheat)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 →

seed treatment · disease · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

70 papers: 65 positive, 5 negative or no effect

64 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. no effect
  2. no effect
  3. no effect

66 papers more in this group

See all 70 papers →

seed treatment · yield · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

301 papers: 270 positive, 31 negative or no effect

30 papers in the same direction as this paper · 270 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. positive

297 papers more in this group

See all 301 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.