Abstract
Abstract In soil, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) meet the roots of both host and presumed nonhost plants, but the interactional mechanisms of AMF with and functional relevance for nonhost plants is little known. Here we show AMF can colonize an individually grown nonhost plant, Arabidopsis thaliana , and suppress the growth of Arabidopsis and two nonhost Brassica crops. This inhibitory effect increased with increasing AMF inoculum density, and was independent of AMF species or nutrient availability. 13 C isotope labeling and physiological analyses revealed no significant carbon‒phosphorus exchange between Arabidopsis and AMF, indicating a lack of nutritional function in this interaction. AMF colonization activated the danger‐associated peptide Pep‐PEPR signaling pathway, and caused clear defense responses in Arabidopsis . The impairment of Pep‐PEPR signaling in nonhost plants greatly compromised AMF‐triggered defensive responses and photosynthesis suppression, leading to higher colonization rates and reduced growth suppression upon AMF inoculation. Pretreatment with Pep peptide decreased AMF colonization, and largely substituted for AMF‐induced growth suppression in nonhosts, confirming that the Pep‐PEPR pathway is a key participant in resistance to AMF colonization and in mediating growth suppression of nonhost plants. This work greatly increases our knowledge about the functional relevance of AMF and their mechanisms of interactions with nonhost plants.
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 14
Claim · model-written summary
AMF colonized individually grown Arabidopsis thaliana.
- Taxon
- Arabidopsis thaliana
Arabidopsis thalianae0 - Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- colonize an individually grown nonhost plante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Here we show AMF can colonize an individually grown nonhost plant, Arabidopsis thaliana , and suppress the growth of Arabidopsis and two nonhost Brassica crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF suppressed growth of nonhost Arabidopsis.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsise0
- Treatment
- AMFe0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- growthe0
- Direction
- suppresse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Here we show AMF can colonize an individually grown nonhost plant, Arabidopsis thaliana , and suppress the growth of Arabidopsis and two nonhost Brassica crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF suppressed growth of nonhost Brassica.
BrassicaNot reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Here we show AMF can colonize an individually grown nonhost plant, Arabidopsis thaliana , and suppress the growth of Arabidopsis and two nonhost Brassica crops.”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth inhibition increased with AMF inoculum density.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Treatment
- AMF inoculum densitye0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- inhibitory effecte0
- Direction
- increasede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This inhibitory effect increased with increasing AMF inoculum density, and was independent of AMF species or nutrient availability.”
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
Claim · model-written summary
Growth inhibition was independent of AMF species or nutrient availability.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsist0
- Outcome
- inhibitory effecte0
- Qualifier
- independent of AMF species or nutrient availabilitye0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“This inhibitory effect increased with increasing AMF inoculum density, and was independent of AMF species or nutrient availability.”
t0“Arabidopsis thaliana”
Claim · model-written summary
Arabidopsis and AMF showed no significant carbon-phosphorus exchange.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsise0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- carbon‒phosphorus exchangee0
- Direction
- no significante0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“13 C isotope labeling and physiological analyses revealed no significant carbon‒phosphorus exchange between Arabidopsis and AMF, indicating a lack of nutritional function in this interaction.”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF colonization activated Pep-PEPR signaling in Arabidopsis.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsise0
- Treatment
- AMF colonizatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Gene
- Pep‐PEPRe0
- Outcome
- Pep‐PEPR signaling pathwaye0
- Direction
- activatede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AMF colonization activated the danger‐associated peptide Pep‐PEPR signaling pathway, and caused clear defense responses in Arabidopsis .”
Claim · model-written summary
AMF colonization caused defense responses in Arabidopsis.
- Taxon
- ArabidopsisArabidopsise0
- Treatment
- AMF colonizatione0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- defense responsese0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“AMF colonization activated the danger‐associated peptide Pep‐PEPR signaling pathway, and caused clear defense responses in Arabidopsis .”
Claim · model-written summary
Impaired Pep-PEPR signaling changed AMF‐triggered defensive responses under AMF inoculation (compromised).
- Taxon
- nonhost plantse0
- Treatment
- impairment of Pep‐PEPR signalinge0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Gene
- Pep‐PEPRe0
- Outcome
- AMF‐triggered defensive responsese0
- Direction
- compromisede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The impairment of Pep‐PEPR signaling in nonhost plants greatly compromised AMF‐triggered defensive responses and photosynthesis suppression, leading to higher colonization rates and reduced growth suppression upon AMF inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Impaired Pep-PEPR signaling changed photosynthesis suppression under AMF inoculation (compromised).
- Taxon
- nonhost plantse0
- Treatment
- impairment of Pep‐PEPR signalinge0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Gene
- Pep‐PEPRe0
- Outcome
- photosynthesis suppressione0
- Direction
- compromisede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The impairment of Pep‐PEPR signaling in nonhost plants greatly compromised AMF‐triggered defensive responses and photosynthesis suppression, leading to higher colonization rates and reduced growth suppression upon AMF inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Impaired Pep-PEPR signaling changed colonization rates under AMF inoculation (higher).
- Taxon
- nonhost plantse0
- Treatment
- impairment of Pep‐PEPR signalinge0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Gene
- Pep‐PEPRe0
- Outcome
- colonization ratese0
- Direction
- highere0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The impairment of Pep‐PEPR signaling in nonhost plants greatly compromised AMF‐triggered defensive responses and photosynthesis suppression, leading to higher colonization rates and reduced growth suppression upon AMF inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Impaired Pep-PEPR signaling changed growth suppression under AMF inoculation (reduced).
- Taxon
- nonhost plantse0
- Treatment
- impairment of Pep‐PEPR signalinge0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Gene
- Pep‐PEPRe0
- Outcome
- growth suppressione0
- Direction
- reducede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The impairment of Pep‐PEPR signaling in nonhost plants greatly compromised AMF‐triggered defensive responses and photosynthesis suppression, leading to higher colonization rates and reduced growth suppression upon AMF inoculation.”
Claim · model-written summary
Pep peptide pretreatment decreased AMF colonization of nonhost plants.
- Taxon
- nonhostse0
- Treatment
- Pretreatment with Pep peptidee0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- AMF colonizatione0
- Direction
- decreasede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Pretreatment with Pep peptide decreased AMF colonization, and largely substituted for AMF‐induced growth suppression in nonhosts”
Claim · model-written summary
Pep peptide pretreatment largely substituted for AMF-induced growth suppression in nonhosts.
- Taxon
- nonhostse0
- Treatment
- Pretreatment with Pep peptidee0
- Interactor
- AMFe0symbiont
- Outcome
- growth suppressione0
- Direction
- substitutede0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“Pretreatment with Pep peptide decreased AMF colonization, and largely substituted for AMF‐induced growth suppression in nonhosts”
The same questions in other papers
infection · disease · ArabidopsisPositive and negative results
2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
3 papers more in this group
See all 7 papers →mycorrhiza · disease · ArabidopsisResults agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- negative
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.