Next Article in Journal
TRPM2 Channel Involvement in the Hesperidin-Mediated Potentiation of Cisplatin’s Antitumor Action in Laryngeal Carcinoma Cells
Next Article in Special Issue
TP-ARMS: A Cost-Effective PCR-Based Genotyping System for Precision Breeding of Small InDels in Crops
Previous Article in Journal
InCytokine, an Open-Source Software, Reveals a TREM2 Variant-Specific Cytokine Signature
Previous Article in Special Issue
DNA Methylation Fine-Tunes Light- and Hormone-Responsive Growth Plasticity in Arabidopsis Seedlings
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJMS
Volume 27
Issue 3
10.3390/ijms27031139
ijms-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Harnessing Plant Microbiomes to Modulate Molecular Signaling and Regulatory Networks in Drought Stress Adaptation

by
Shahjadi-Nur-Us Shams
1,2,†,
Md Arifur Rahman Khan
1,3,†,
Sayed Shahidul Islam
4,
Afsana Jarin
1,
Md. Nahidul Islam
5,
Touhidur Rahman Anik
6,
Mostafa Abdelrahman
7,
Chien Van Ha
6,
Thayne Montague
3,* and
Lam-Son Phan Tran
6,*
1
Department of Agronomy, Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur 1706, Bangladesh
2
School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC 3216, Australia
3
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
4
Department of Plant Pathology, Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur 1706, Bangladesh
5
Department of Food Engineering, Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur 1706, Bangladesh
6
Institute of Genomics for Crop Abiotic Stress Tolerance, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409, USA
7
Institute of One Health and Innovation, Lubbock, TX 79415, USA
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27(3), 1139; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031139
Submission received: 19 December 2025 / Revised: 16 January 2026 / Accepted: 20 January 2026 / Published: 23 January 2026
(This article belongs to the Special Issue 25th Anniversary of IJMS: Updates and Advances in Molecular Plant Sciences)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

Drought stress is a major abiotic factor limiting global crop productivity by disrupting cellular homeostasis, impairing photosynthesis, and restricting metabolic activity. Plant-associated microorganisms, including rhizobacteria, endophytes, and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, play key roles in enhancing drought resilience through molecular, biochemical, and physiological mechanisms. These beneficial microbes modulate phytohormone biosynthesis, enhance osmolyte accumulation, increase organic acid exudation, and activate ROS-scavenging antioxidant pathways. Microbe-mediated regulation of aquaporins, heat shock proteins, and root system architecture further improves water-use efficiency, hydraulic conductance, and stress acclimation. Advances in microbial genomics and systems biology have revealed the molecular drivers of plant–microbe synergism, enabling the development of tailored microbial consortia and next-generation bioinoculants. Complementarily, genetic and genome-guided modulation of drought-responsive regulatory hubs including transcription factors (e.g., DREBs, NACs, MYBs, and bZIPs), signal transducers (e.g., MAPKs and CDPKs), and protective proteins enhances adaptive plasticity under water deficit conditions. This review integrates current molecular insights into drought-induced perturbations in plants and highlights the convergence of microbial interventions and genome-guided strategies in reinforcing drought tolerance. Emphasizing mechanistic frameworks, scalable microbial technologies, and molecular breeding approaches, this work underscores their potential to improve crop resilience in increasingly water-limited environments.

1. Introduction

Drought is one of the most significant abiotic stresses limiting crop productivity worldwide, and its impacts are intensifying due to climate change [1]. Rising global temperatures and irregular precipitation patterns have increased the frequency and severity of water-deficit events, posing major threats to agricultural sustainability and food security [1,2,3]. Drought stress negatively affects plant structural, functional, and molecular processes, which subsequently limits crop production. Insufficient water disrupts the cellular dynamics of the plant-water relationship, ultimately affecting overall plant health [4]. Consequently, the arrested plant growth leads to reduced leaf expansion, stomatal closure, and disrupted enzyme activities, as well as decreased carbon dioxide absorption, which collectively contribute to the deterioration of membrane potential. Furthermore, drought-induced disruption promotes the excessive accumulation of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in plant tissues, which triggers lipid peroxidation and membrane disruption while also contributing to the breakdown of essential cellular components [5]. At the molecular level, plant responses to drought involve complex regulatory networks, including transcription factors such as dehydration responsive element binding (DREB) proteins, NAM, ATAF, and CUC (NAC) proteins, myeloblastosis (MYB)-related proteins, and basic leucine zipper (bZIP) proteins, as well as signaling pathways mediated by mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) and calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs) [3,4,5]. In past years, several strategies have been taken to compensate for the drought-induced yield loss, where most were focused on traditional breeding and genetic engineering approaches [6]. The primary obstacle to implementing these methods is their high cost, labor-intensive procedures, and the extended time required for meaningful results.
The utilization of plant-associated microorganisms has emerged as an increasingly popular, appealing, and economically viable approach for alleviating drought stress. Several studies show that plant microorganisms, including actinomycetes and mycorrhiza with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPRs), play essential roles in both directly and indirectly supporting plant growth and resistance under drought conditions [7]. Passive mechanisms, which indirectly support plant growth by mitigating pathogen-induced growth inhibition rather than actively producing bioactive compounds, help maintain overall plant development under water-limited conditions [8]. During direct activation, microorganisms improve plant resilience by producing growth-promoting compounds and hormones that enhance nutrient uptake, water movement, and the synthesis of protective osmolytes and antioxidants [9]. By colonizing plant roots and establishing stable interactions, microbes regulate host gene expression, enzyme activities, and water uptake efficiency, enabling plants to better withstand prolonged water deficit [10,11]. Integration of omics approaches, epigenetic regulation, and genome-guided breeding strategies has provided insights into how these pathways coordinate physiological and biochemical adaptations [12,13]. The synergistic application of microbial interventions alongside molecular and genetic approaches holds promise for developing crops with enhanced drought resilience. This review provides a comprehensive overview of the molecular mechanisms underlying plant responses to drought stress and highlights the role of plant-associated microbiomes in modulating these responses. By linking molecular biology, genetics, and microbial ecology, it aims to offer a conceptual framework for leveraging plant–microbe interactions to improve crop performance under water-limited conditions and support sustainable agriculture in the context of climate change.

2. Consequences of Drought Stress on Plants

Drought stress significantly restricts plant growth and productivity by modifying morphology, anatomy, physiology, biochemical, and molecular regulation in a systematic manner [14]. Figure 1 provides an overview of the consequences of drought stress in plants, highlighting morphophysiological, biochemical, anatomical, and molecular responses.
During the initial stages of plant development, insufficient soil moisture reduces germination rates, disrupts uniform seedling emergence, and inhibits the elongation of hypocotyls and radicles [15]. Similar constraints persist during subsequent vegetative growth stages. Hossain et al. observed significant decreases in plant height, leaf area, pod and branch number, and overall biomass in drought stress conditions [16]. A concurrent reduction in leaf area index (LAI) further restricts light interception and photosynthetic carbon assimilation, thereby reducing assimilate availability for vegetative and reproductive growth [17]. Disruptions in source–sink relationships also limit resource allocation to developing reproductive tissues, resulting in impaired floral initiation and reduced fertilization efficiency. From a physiological perspective, drought stress markedly reduces photosynthetic efficiency through stomatal closure, decreased mesophyll conductance, and impaired chloroplast function. Reductions in relative water content (RWC) further affect stomatal behavior, transpiration rates, osmotic balance, and carbon fixation capacity, collectively constraining plant productivity under drought stress [18]. At the anatomical level, leaves often exhibit reduced lamina expansion, enhanced deposition of cuticular waxes, and increased leaf rolling, all of which contribute to reduced transpirational water loss [19]. Root systems undergo adaptive remodeling to optimize water acquisition, including deeper rooting, increased root-to-shoot ratios, enhanced suberization, and species-dependent adjustments in xylem vessel diameter, balancing hydraulic efficiency with resistance to cavitation [20]. Biochemically, drought stress promotes excessive accumulation of ROS, such as superoxide radicals (O2•−), hydrogen peroxide (H2O2), and hydroxyl radicals (•OH), leading to lipid peroxidation, protein oxidation, and nucleic acid damage. These oxidative processes destabilize cellular membranes and inactivate key metabolic enzymes [21]. To counteract oxidative damage, plants activate antioxidant defense systems, including enzymatic components such as superoxide dismutase (SOD), catalase (CAT), peroxidase (POD), and enzymes of the ascorbate–glutathione (AsA–GSH) cycle, along with non-enzymatic antioxidants [22]. Drought-induced metabolic disruption also involves reduced nitrogen assimilation and impaired carbohydrate partitioning, which further limit energy availability for growth and development [23]. At the molecular level, drought stress perturbs signaling and regulatory networks essential for stress perception and adaptation. Water deficit conditions lead to dysregulated activation of abscisic acid (ABA)-, Calcium ion (Ca2+)-, and MAPK-dependent signaling pathways, thereby impairing the coordination of downstream stress responses [18]. Alterations in transcription factor networks, including DREB, NAC, and MYB families, affect the expression of stress-responsive genes encoding aquaporins, dehydrins, and late embryogenesis abundant (LEA) proteins. In addition, drought stress influences epigenetic regulation by modifying DNA methylation patterns and small RNA profiles, which can destabilize chromatin structure and compromise the maintenance of long-term gene expression [24]. These molecular disruptions reduce signaling precision, impair metabolic efficiency, and weaken plant adaptive capacity during prolonged periods of water-limited conditions.
Collectively, drought stress imposes multifaceted constraints on plant growth, spanning morphological, physiological, biochemical, anatomical, and molecular levels. These effects, including reduced germination, impaired photosynthesis, oxidative damage, altered root and leaf architecture, and dysregulated stress-responsive signaling pathways, compromise plant development and productivity. Understanding these consequences provides a foundation for targeted interventions, as plants rely on both intrinsic molecular mechanisms such as ABA, Ca2+, and MAPK signaling pathways, transcription factor regulation, and osmoprotectant accumulation. The integration of physiological insights with molecular and microbial strategies, as detailed in Section 3, highlights potential avenues for enhancing drought tolerance and sustaining crop performance under water-limited conditions.

3. Genetic and Molecular Signaling Pathways Under Drought Stress

Water scarcity activates a complex array of genetic and molecular signaling pathways that enable plants to adjust to water restriction. Membrane-bound receptors play a crucial role in coordinating ABA signaling pathways, Ca2+-dependent signaling, and MAPK cascades, which regulate transcriptional reprogramming in response to initial drought perception [25]. These signaling cascades regulate the expression of stress-responsive genes such as dehydrins, LEA proteins, ROS-scavenging enzymes, and genes related to osmoprotectant biosynthesis, thus protecting cellular integrity and maintaining metabolic balance under water-stressed conditions [26]. The following subsections present a focused analysis of each signaling pathway, emphasizing their molecular interactions and contributions to drought-adaptive phenotypes.

3.1. ABA Signaling Pathway

ABA is a critical lipophilic phytohormone that functions as a principal signaling molecule during drought stress. Under control conditions, endogenous ABA levels are maintained at moderate concentrations through a balanced interplay between biosynthesis and catabolism. Drought stress conditions rapidly disrupt this equilibrium by inducing 9-cis-epoxycarotenoid dioxygenase 3 gene NCED3 and related carotenoid cleavage genes while repressing ABA 8′-hydroxylase, leading to a substantial (10–50-fold, species- and tissue-dependent) increase in ABA concentration in xylem sap [27]. Accumulated ABA binds to PYR/PYL receptors, inhibiting PP2C phosphatases and activation of SnRK2 kinases, which triggers rapid transcriptional reprogramming for early drought adaptation. Functional evidence from transgenic studies supports this pathway; for example, expression of PeCPK10 in Arabidopsis enhances drought tolerance by strengthening ABA-dependent activation of RD22 and COR15A [28].

3.2. Calcium Signaling Pathway

Calcium (Ca2+) functions as a secondary messenger that transduces drought-induced signals into specific downstream responses. In well-hydrated cells, cytosolic Ca2+ concentrations are maintained at approximately 100–200 nM. Drought stress induces transient Ca2+ elevations that activate Ca2+-responsive components including calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs), calcineurin B-like proteins (CBLs), and CBL–CIPK complexes [22]. These Ca2+-mediated modules regulate ion transport, osmolyte synthesis, and stomatal closure, thereby complementing ABA-dependent responses [29].

3.3. Protein Kinase Signaling Networks

Protein kinase networks integrate diverse drought-induced signals into coordinated transcriptional and metabolic responses. Key kinase families include CDPKs, MAPKs, and CIPKs, which respond to specific cues and execute pathway-specific roles [28,30,31,32,33]. CDPKs directly transduce Ca2+ fluctuations to regulate membrane transport, ROS detoxification, and metabolic homeostasis. The MAPK cascade (MAPKKKs → MAPKKs → MAPKs) primarily coordinates phosphorylation events controlling stomatal behavior and stress-induced metabolism. CIPKs act as integrators, linking Ca2+ and ABA signaling, with GmCIPK2 functioning upstream of ABA-responsive elements in soybean [33]. These kinase networks collectively amplify drought-derived signals while maintaining distinct, pathway-specific contributions, preceding transcription factor activation.

3.4. Regulatory Gene Expression

Drought induces widespread transcriptional reprogramming, with transcription factors (TFs) serving as central regulatory hubs that coordinate hormonal and kinase-mediated signaling pathways. Among these, DREB and NAC TF families play prominent roles by activating stress-responsive genes that enhance drought tolerance through modulation of multiple molecular pathways. For example, PvDREB1F and PvDREB5A demonstrate significant induction under drought stress conditions in common beans [34], while TaSAP5 in wheat [35] and ScDREB2B-1 in sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum) [36] act as key regulators of drought responses. Sequence variation in DREB2 alleles has also been suggested as a molecular marker for identifying drought-tolerant genotypes. Furthermore, the DREB family has also been proposed as potential genetic markers for the identification of drought-resistant genotypes [36]. NAC TFs further extend this regulatory network; for example, Stress-responsive NAC 1 (SNAC1) enhances drought tolerance in rice by regulating downstream targets such as OsPP18 and aPP2C gene. Transcriptome analyses revealed extensive induction of NAC family members under drought stress, with approximately 40 NAC genes identified in rice and 38 in soybean [37,38]. Together, these TFs connect ABA-, Ca2+-, and kinase-mediated signals to structural, metabolic, and antioxidant adaptations which is essential for drought resilience.

3.5. Heat Shock Protein Pathway

Heat shock proteins (HSPs) are strongly upregulated during drought stress and contribute to cellular protection by preventing protein aggregation and promoting correct folding of nascent or stress-denatured polypeptides [39]. Heat shock factors (HSFs) act upstream by regulating HSP genes, thereby linking stress perception to protein homeostasis. Through stabilization and refolding of damaged proteins, HSPs mitigate drought-induced cellular injury. In addition, HSPs interact with diverse signaling proteins to enhance stress-responsive gene expression and cellular tolerance [40,41]. Expression profiling revealed that HmHSF05, HmHSF12, and HmHSF14 genes were predominantly expressed in root tissues, indicating a potential role in root-specific drought responses. Structural modeling of HmHSF15 uncovered a distinct three-dimensional configuration, while conserved DNA-binding domains were identified across all HSF proteins. Gene ontology analysis further associated HmHSF genes with key abiotic stress-related biological processes, highlighting their involvement in drought stress adaptation in Hibiscus myrtifolia [41].

3.6. Transgenic Evidence Supporting Drought-Responsive Pathways

Under water-deficit conditions, plants rapidly adjust the expression of stress-responsive genes and proteins to sustain growth and development [12]. Several components, including CaPR-10, vacuolar ATPases, small heat shock proteins (sHSPs), dehydrin-like proteins (Cadhn), 11-pyrroline-5-carboxylate reductase (P5CR), and pyrroline-5-carboxylate dehydrogenase (P5CDH), contribute to drought tolerance by maintaining osmotic balance, and reducing ROS-induced damage [42]. Transgenic approaches provide strong functional evidence for these pathways. For example, the oxidative stress-inducible promoter SWPA2 drives overexpression of the MnSOD gene from legumes in rice chloroplasts, enhancing drought resistance. Similarly, co-expression of TsVP and betA in maize significantly improves drought stress tolerance [43]. Mutants deficient in wax accumulation (dwa1 and osgl1-2) exhibit increased drought sensitivity, whereas overexpression of δ-OAT enhances drought tolerance in rice by promoting proline accumulation and facilitating ROS detoxification [44,45,46]. Table 1 summarizes representative transgenic plants with enhanced drought tolerance resulting from the transfer of drought-responsive genes from various donor species.

4. Effects of Microbes on Drought Stress Alleviation

Beneficial soil microbes significantly mitigate the detrimental effects of drought stress [61]. Plant-associated microbiota, such as rhizobacteria (e.g., Pseudomonas and Bacillus spp.) and endophytes (e.g., Azospirillum and Enterobacter), enhance crop adaptation by promoting root architecture, activating stress-inducible genes, and improving water use efficiency under water-limited conditions [62]. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) contribute through nitrogen fixation and phosphate solubilization, and the release of phytohormones and amino acids [11]. For example, the P. argentinensis strain SA190 increased drought resilience by priming plant genes via the ABA pathway [63]. Endosymbiotic fungi such as Aspergillus fumigatus, A. terreus, and Talaromyces variabilis have been shown to enhance tomato yield, quality, and drought tolerance [64]. Although plant viruses are conventionally regarded as pathogenic agents, emerging evidence indicates that certain viruses can positively modulate plant responses to drought. In mutualistic symbiotic contexts, viruses may enhance host survival by pre-activating physiological and molecular processes that confer improved tolerance to anticipated environmental stress [65,66]. For instance, several plant viruses, including rice tungro spherical virus (RTSV), tomato yellow leaf curl virus (TYLCV), and tomato chlorosis virus (ToCV), have been reported in specific host–virus–environment contexts to enhance drought tolerance by delaying leaf rolling, improving stomatal conductance, and modulating drought-responsive gene expression [61,65,66]. These beneficial effects are highly conditional and may not occur universally across all plant–virus interactions. In some cases, viruses can also induce the expression of pathogen-related enzymatic genes, such as CesA/Csl, which contribute both to viral defense under certain conditions [66]. The role of microbial species in mitigating the effects of drought stress is presented in Table 2.
Understanding microbial interactions under drought stress offers promising avenues for sustainable agriculture. Notably, drought-mitigating microorganisms induce substantial modifications in root system architecture, thereby enhancing soil exploration and improving water uptake under water-limited conditions. Microbial inoculation markedly enhances drought tolerance in plants by improving root morphological and physiological traits (Figure 2). Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), PGPR, serve as effective inoculants by producing a range of phytohormones, primarily auxins, cytokinins, and ethylene, in addition to enzymes such as 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase and metabolites including exopolysaccharides. These bioactive compounds activate multiple molecular and physiological pathways that collectively contribute to enhanced drought stress tolerance [87]. Following inoculation, rhizospheric microorganisms establish colonies on root surfaces and develop biofilm structures that improve their stability and persistence. Microbial consortia, particularly AMF–PGPR combinations, exhibited synergistic interactions that led to enhanced plant responses relative to the use of individual inoculants alone. Their specific functions as root endophytes include promoting plant growth, enhancing photosynthetic performance, and leaf pigment production. This process leads to an enhanced buildup of compatible solutes, phosphates, and IAA levels, thereby facilitating the preservation of the plant’s overall water balance [88].
Microbial inoculation has been shown to significantly enhance root system development under drought stress in several crop species. For instance, inoculation of pearl millet (Pennisetum glaucum) with osmotolerant endophytic bacteria has been shown to enhance root biomass, surface area, and elongation, particularly under severe drought conditions [78]. Similarly, Azospirillum inoculation in wheat improved water status by reducing water potential and expanding xylem channels [80]. In sorghum, seed priming combined with Bacillus cereus and potassium silicate increased growth performance, RWC, and membrane stability, as indicated by reduced electrolyte leakage under drought stress conditions [89]. Plants respond to drought stress by synthesizing ACC, the immediate precursor of ethylene [90]. Beneficial microorganisms that produce ACC deaminase can sequester plant-derived ACC, which regulates ethylene production and enhances the overall development of the entire plant [91]. In addition, ACC deaminase activity enhanced antioxidant enzyme function, stimulated the production of intracellular osmolytes, and increased leaf pigment content under drought conditions [92]. Several microbial species such as Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Enterobacter cloacae, Achromobacter xylosoxidans, and Leclercia adecarboxylata are thought to synthesise ACC deaminase in maize, thereby enhancing the adaptability of the plant under water shortage conditions [93,94,95]. Similar benefits have been observed in grape (Vitis vinifera), bell pepper (Capsicum annuum), and guar (Cyamopsis tetragonoloba) [42].
Beyond ACC-mediated signaling, additional microbial-derived signals contribute to drought tolerance. Volatile organic compounds (VOCs), such as 2,3-butanediol produced by non-pathogenic root-colonizing microorganisms, can induce partial stomatal closure, thereby reducing transpirational water loss. Root colonization by Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas chlororaphis O6 elicits similar responses, with P. chlororaphis O6 also exhibiting strong biocontrol activity that further enhances drought tolerance [4]. Moreover, many microorganisms produce hydrophilic biofilms composed of EPS, which improve soil aggregation, enhance root adherence, and increase soil water retention, collectively strengthening plant defense against drought stress conditions [93]. In parallel with biochemical signaling, microbial colonization induces pronounced modifications in root architecture (Figure 2). Microbe-derived IAA stimulates primary root elongation and lateral root formation, resulting in increased root hair density under drought conditions. AMF extend extensive hyphal networks into deeper soil layersthat improves water acquisition beyond the rhizosphere. These interactions enhance hydraulic conductivity and support sustained water uptake during prolonged drought stress [94].
Extending the previously defined signaling procedures, microorganisms additionally initiate drought-response pathways (Figure 3). A key microbial involvement is the enhancement of osmolyte production, wherein microorganisms promote the accumulation of compatible solutes, including proline, glycine betaine, and trehalose. These osmolytes contribute to protein stabilization, sustain membrane structural integrity, and maintain cellular turgor pressure under limited water conditions. Root endophytic bacteria, including Ochrobactrum sp., Microbacterium sp., Enterobacter sp., and E. cloacae, improved osmotic balance by upregulating proline biosynthesis genes (SbP5CS1 and SbP5CS2), thereby strengthening cellular water retention in sorghum roots [95]. Simultaneously, microbial interactions also strengthen the plant’s antioxidant defense mechanisms by inhibiting enzymes that detoxify ROS. The enzyme combination SOD, CAT, and ascorbate peroxidase (APX) facilitates the detoxification of ROS and safeguards of proteins, nucleic acids, and cell membranes from oxidative damage [96]. In barley, inoculation with Piriformospora indica enhanced the expression of genes involved in stress signaling, metabolite transport, and antioxidant defense, thereby reinforcing plant protection against drought-induced oxidative damage [95]. Microbial inoculation increased the activities of SOD and APX, while reducing H2O2 and malondialdehyde (MDA) accumulation, which are key indicators of oxidative stress and membrane lipid peroxidation under drought stress conditions [90,91].
Regulation of phytohormone homeostasis represents a critical microbial adaptation strategy in arid environments. Beneficial microorganisms modulate the biosynthesis and signaling of gibberellins, cytokinins, ABA, and indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), thereby controlling stomatal behavior, water-use efficiency, and root system architecture under water-limited conditions [97,98]. In particular, ABA-mediated signaling regulates stomatal closure and maintains metabolic stability during drought stress, whereas microbially derived IAA promotes root elongation and lateral root formation. In addition, rhizobacteria produce exopolysaccharides that enhance soil aggregation, improve rhizosphere water retention, and strengthen root–soil adhesion, facilitating sustained water uptake under drought stress [93]. Modifications of microbial cell wall components, including peptidoglycan and lipopolysaccharides, contribute to the stabilization of microbial biofilms in the rhizosphere, ensuring persistent root colonization and indirectly enhancing plant membrane stability and drought tolerance.

5. Molecular Interactions in Plant-Microbe Symbiosis for Drought Tolerance

A plant, together with its associated microbial communities, forms an integrated functional entity known as a holobiont. Within this framework, genetic variation exists not only between the host plant and its associated microorganisms but also within the microbial populations themselves. This dynamic and co-evolved relationship influences multiple aspects of plant health, development, and adaptability to environmental fluctuations. The stability and effectiveness of the holobiont depend on coordinated communication systems operating both within microbial communities and between microbes and the host plants [99]. These interactions enhanced disease resistance and stress tolerance, thereby improving the overall resilience of the holobiont. A comprehensive understanding of these complex molecular interactions provides valuable opportunities for developing innovative and sustainable agricultural strategies that exploit beneficial plant–microbe associations to enhance crop productivity. Figure 4 presents a schematic overview of how microbial signaling pathways integrate with plant hormonal and transcriptional networks to promote drought tolerance within the holobiont. The following section highlights key molecular mechanisms underlying these interactions.

5.1. Signal Transduction Pathways and Transcriptional Regulation

Signal transduction and transcriptional regulation play central roles in the perception of drought stress signals and the activation of adaptive gene expression in plants. Plant–microbe symbioses, particularly those involving AMF, rhizobia, and PGPR, represent a critical regulatory layer that modulates these molecular pathways under water-deficit conditions. At the molecular level, drought-responsive signaling cascades activate or repress key transcription factor families, including DREB/AP2-ERF, AREB/ABF, WRKY, MYB, and NAC. These transcription factors bind to cis-regulatory elements such as dehydration-responsive elements (DRE/CRT) and ABA–responsive elements (ABRE), thereby controlling the expression of drought-responsive genes [100]. Microbial symbiosis alters these signaling networks, particularly pathways mediated by ABA, Ca2+, and MAPKs. Such modifications reshape transcriptional regulatory networks and enable large-scale transcriptional reprogramming, ultimately enhancing plant drought tolerance [12]. For instance, under water-limited conditions, AMF belonging to the phylum Glomeromycota significantly improved stomatal conductance in Poncirus trifoliata and Rosmarinus officinalis. In Solanum lycopersicum, AMF inoculation enhanced hydraulic conductivity through modulation of 14-3-3 genes (TFT1–TFT12) within the ABA signaling pathway, accompanied by changes in phytohormone levels, including strigolactones, jasmonic acid, and ABA [101]. Recent transcriptomic analyses demonstrated that inoculation of wheat with Funneliformis mosseae rapidly enhanced aquaporin (AQP) expression in roots during drought stress, while concurrently regulating genes associated with cell wall organization and membrane integrity [102]. Similarly, AMF symbiosis modulated Ca2+-dependent signaling pathways, leading to altered expression of CDPKs, MAPKs, CBLs, and CIPKs in maize. These changes collectively influenced cellular signaling, and drought adaptation [103]. Aquaporins constitute a major mechanistic component of AMF-mediated drought tolerance. These pore-forming integral membrane proteins regulate water transport across cellular membranes and are strongly influenced by mycorrhizal colonization [104]. For example, the AQP genes GintAQPF1 and GintAQPF2 showed significantly increased expression in the extraradical mycelium of Rhizophagus irregularis and in mycorrhizal roots under oxidative stress, indicating direct AMF involvement in water stress regulation [105]. In Poncirus trifoliata, Funneliformis mosseae consistently upregulated root tonoplast intrinsic protein (TIP) genes (PtTIP1;2, PtTIP1;3, and PtTIP4;1), while downregulating PtTIP2;1 and PtTIP5;1. This differential regulation highlights the functional diversity of AMF in controlling transpiration and root water transport under drought conditions [106]. Compared to AMF, transcriptomic studies addressing PGPR-mediated transcriptional regulation under drought stress remain relatively limited. Nonetheless, available evidence indicated that PGPR inoculation enhanced drought adaptability by suppressing the excessive activation of stress-associated hormonal pathways, particularly those involving ABA and ethylene [107]. Transcriptome profiling of sugarcane roots colonized by Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus revealed that inoculated plants exhibited reduced expression of drought-responsive genes such as DREB1A/CBF3, DREB1B/CBF1, and NCED3 homologs, despite active auxin metabolism. While ABA-related pathways were similarly enriched in both inoculated and non-inoculated plants, cytokinin signaling was uniquely upregulated in inoculated plants, indicating hormone-specific modulation by PGPR [108]. Comparable transcriptomic responses were observed in A. thaliana inoculated with Paenibacillus polymyxa B2. Inoculated plants displayed enhanced transcription of the drought-responsive gene ERD15 and upregulation of jasmonic acid marker genes (VSP1 and PDF1.2), salicylic acid–regulated gene PR1, and ethylene-responsive gene HEL, although the magnitude of these responses varied under drought stress conditions [109]. In pepper plants, inoculation with Bacillus licheniformis K11 induced the accumulation of six drought-responsive proteins. Notably, the expression of Cadhn, VA, sHSP, and CaPR-10 genes increased approximately 1.5-fold relative to uninoculated controls [71]. In wheat, inoculation with B. amyloliquefaciens 5113 and Azospirillum brasilense NO40 enhanced the activity of enzymes involved in the ascorbate–glutathione redox cycle, including APX, thereby priming plants for improved oxidative stress management and reduced drought-induced damage at the whole-plant level [110].

5.2. Microbial Regulation of Plant Genes and Hormones Under Drought Stress

Beneficial microorganisms influence plant drought adaptation by modulating drought-responsive gene expression, phytohormone biosynthesis, and associated signaling pathways. This coordinated regulation integrates molecular and hormonal responses, thereby enhancing plant survival under water-limited conditions. Upon drought exposure, plants activate genes involved in water transport, osmoprotectants, and stress signaling to mitigate dehydration-induced damage. Microbial colonization can further amplify these responses by targeting key regulatory nodes within stress-response networks. For instance, Pseudomonas mandelii has been shown to enhance nutrient acquisition and facilitate fungal symbiosis in the Mediterranean shrub Helianthemum almeriense [111]. Specifically, P. mandelii upregulated the plant aquaporin gene TcAQP1, which is essential for the expression of the fungal aquaporin. This interaction likely improves water transport within the plant–fungal continuum, thereby enhancing drought resilience of the symbiotic association. Similarly, Wang et al. demonstrated that inoculation of tomato cultivars with Bacillus amyloliquefaciens 54 significantly elevated the expression of stress-regulated genes, including late embryogenesis abundant LEA genes, which contribute to cellular protection and molecular stability under water-deficit conditions [112]. In Brachypodium distachyon Bd21, inoculation with B. subtilis B26 altered the expression of drought-adaptive genes such as DREB2B-like, DHN3-like, and LEA-14-A-like, resulting in enhanced drought tolerance [113]. DREB transcription factors function as central regulators of drought responses by activating downstream protective genes, including LEA and DHN, thereby establishing coordinated stress-response networks. These findings support the concept that microbial colonization preferentially targets regulatory hubs rather than isolated stress genes to improve drought resistance [114]. Comparable regulatory effects were observed in soybean plants inoculated with the drought-tolerant PGPR P. simiae strain AU, which enhanced drought tolerance by upregulating genes associated with osmoprotectant biosynthesis (P5CS and GOLS), water transport (plasma membrane intrinsic proteins and tonoplast intrinsic proteins), and stress-responsive transcriptional regulation [115]. Collectively, these gene expression changes contributed to improved physiological adaptation under drought stress conditions.
In parallel with transcriptional regulation, beneficial microorganisms actively remodel plant phytohormone profiles to favor drought-adaptive physiological states. Key phytohormones, including ABA, ethylene, auxin, cytokinins, gibberellins, and salicylic acid (SA), play critical roles in balancing growth and stress responses during water scarcity [116]. In Arabidopsis thaliana, exposure to microbial signaling molecules such as lipo-chitooligosaccharides (LCOs) and thuricin 17 (Th17) induced pronounced hormonal reprogramming under drought stress [114]. LCO treatment reduced levels of IAA, cytokinins, and gibberellins, while increasing ABA and SA concentrations, whereas Th17 similarly elevated ABA and SA levels. These hormonal shifts indicated a microbial-driven transition from growth-promoting pathways toward stress-adaptive signaling dominated by ABA and SA [117]. Furthermore, Curá et al. showed that nitrogen-fixing bacteria Azospirillum brasilense SP-7 and Herbaspirillum seropedicae Z-152 enhanced growth and stress adaptability in maize [118]. These PGPR strains suppressed the expression of ZmVP14, thereby moderating drought-induced elevations in ABA and ethylene levels. Such hormonal modulation mitigated stress-associated hormonal imbalances and improved drought tolerance in maize [119]. Additionally, several beneficial microorganisms alleviate drought stress by degrading the stress hormone ethylene through the activity of ACC deaminase. By lowering ethylene levels and modulating stress-responsive gene expression, ACC deaminase serves as a pivotal microbial trait linking hormonal regulation with downstream drought adaptation mechanisms [120].

5.3. Omics Approaches and Epigenetic Regulation of Plant–Microbe Interactions

Molecular-level analyses of biological systems encompass a wide range of high-throughput approaches, including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and genomics. Figure 5 illustrates how multi-omics approaches collectively elucidate plant–microbe interaction networks under drought stress conditions. These technologies provide system-wide insights into genetic, transcriptional, protein, and metabolic profiles, facilitating understanding of plant responses to external stimuli. Integration of multi-omics datasets enables the dissection of complex plant–microbe interactions, particularly under drought stress conditions. Genomic approaches have been applied to identify loci and molecular markers associated with drought resilience. For example, genomic markers have been used to enhance silicon accumulation in rice, contributing to improved drought tolerance [121,122]. Marker-assisted breeding and genome-editing technologies, such as CRISPR/Cas systems, allow functional validation of drought-responsive genomic regions, potentially influencing plant–microbe interaction traits [123,124]. At the microbial level, specific PGPR and rhizobacteria have been reported to harbor drought-related gene clusters involved in osmoprotectant and IAA biosynthesis, which may enhance host drought adaptation under certain conditions [125,126].
It is important to note, however, that these microbial effects are often context-dependent, varying with host species, microbial strain, and environmental conditions. Proteomic analyses have identified stress-responsive proteins and signaling components associated with microbial colonization, such as pathogenesis-related proteins (PR5, PR10), antioxidant enzyme (SOD), and regulatory proteins (CDPKs, PBZ1, OsWRKY30) [127]. Transcriptomic studies reveal dynamic gene expression changes during plant–microbe interactions, including those affecting photosynthesis, carbohydrate metabolism, and stress-responsive transcription factors [128,129,130]. Metabolomics complements these findings by identifying metabolites involved in stress adaptation, which can be modulated by microbial associations [131,132]. Beyond conventional omics, epigenetic regulation has emerged as a promising but still limited mechanism influencing plant–microbe interactions under drought stress. Epigenetic modifications, such as DNA methylation and histone modifications, enable rapid and reversible changes in gene expression without altering DNA sequences, providing phenotypic plasticity in response to microbial signals and environmental cues [133]. A few studies suggested that microbial inoculation can influence plant epigenomes to enhance stress tolerance, for example Burkholderia phytofirmans PsJN in potato [134]. and Bacillus subtilis B26 in Brachypodium distachyon [135]. However, evidence remains scarce, particularly in major crop species, and microbial effects on histone remodeling during drought stress are largely unexplored [136,137,138].
Overall, while multi-omics approaches provide valuable mechanistic insights into plant–microbe interactions, the effects are context-dependent, and the role of epigenetic regulation remains largely speculative. Future studies should combine multi-omics, functional validation, and field trials to establish the reproducibility and scalability of microbial interventions in diverse crops and environmental conditions.

6. Future Directions

Drought represents a critical threat to global agricultural productivity and food security, rendering agroecosystems highly vulnerable to ongoing climate change. Harnessing plant–microbe interactions offer a promising strategy to sustain crop productivity under increasing water scarcity. Future research should prioritize the development of robust, field-ready microbial formulations capable of enhancing plant performance under drought conditions while reducing dependence on chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Advancing this field will require integrative approaches that combine signal transduction biology, microbial ecology, and molecular genetics to comprehensively elucidate plant adaptive responses in water-limited environments. Improving the stability, colonization efficiency, and functional consistency of beneficial microbial consortia under field conditions is essential for translating laboratory findings into scalable agricultural applications. Despite recent progress, the complexity of plant-associated microbial communities and their dynamic interactions with host signaling networks remain major challenges to fully understanding microbiome-mediated drought tolerance. Advanced multi-omics platforms, coupled with epigenetic profiling and functional validation of signaling pathways and transcriptional regulators, will be instrumental in uncovering the molecular mechanisms by which microorganisms enhance plant drought resilience. A deeper understanding of these interactions will facilitate the rational design and targeted manipulation of microbial communities to improve crop performance under water stress conditions. Although this research area is still evolving, continued investigation holds significant potential for the development of microbiome-assisted agricultural systems capable of sustaining food production in increasingly arid environments.

7. Conclusions

Drought stress remains a major limitation to global agricultural productivity, necessitating innovative, sustainable strategies to enhance crop resilience. This review provides a unique integrative perspective by linking plant morpho-physiological, biochemical, and molecular responses to drought with the regulatory roles of beneficial microbial communities. By synthesizing current knowledge on drought-adaptive microorganisms and their influence on ABA signaling, calcium fluxes, protein kinase cascades, transcriptional regulation, and epigenetic reprogramming, we highlight how plant–microbe interactions can coordinate complex stress responses. Importantly, this work emphasizes the potential applications of these insights for the rational design of microbiome-based bioinoculants and management strategies to promote climate-resilient, resource-efficient agriculture. Future research integrating multi-omics approaches, functional genomics, and rigorous field validation will be critical to translate mechanistic understanding into practical solutions for sustaining crop productivity under water-limited conditions. This review thus bridges conceptual understanding with actionable guidance, offering a roadmap for advancing both fundamental research and applied solutions in plant drought tolerance.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: S.-N.-U.S., M.A.R.K., T.M. and L.-S.P.T.; writing—original draft preparation: S.-N.-U.S. and M.A.R.K.; writing—review and editing: S.-N.-U.S., M.A.R.K., S.S.I., A.J., M.N.I., T.R.A., M.A., C.V.H., T.M. and L.-S.P.T.; visualization: S.-N.-U.S. and M.A.R.K.; supervision: M.A.R.K., T.M. and L.-S.P.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors express their heartfelt gratitude to the University Grants Commissions of Bangladesh for supporting the project titled “Morpho-physiological and biochemical changes of cowpea genotypes under saline conditions”, to the Ministry of Science and Technology for the special research grant (2022–2023, SRG-221152), and to the Research Management Wing of Gazipur Agricultural University, Gazipur 1706, Bangladesh (Project ID: 05/2020), for their contributions to this work. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used OpenAI’s ChatGPT (GPT-5-mini; https://chat.openai.com, accessed on 21 September 2025) for language refinement and grammar correction of the manuscript text. The authors have reviewed and edited the output and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships which influenced the work composing this paper. No data was used for the research described in the article.

References

  1. Cohen, I.; Zandalinas, S.I.; Huck, C.; Fritschi, F.B.; Mittler, R. Meta-Analysis of Drought and Heat Stress Combination Impact on Crop Yield and Yield Components. Physiol. Plant. 2021, 171, 66–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Zia, R.; Nawaz, M.S.; Siddique, M.J.; Hakim, S.; Imran, A. Plant Survival under Drought Stress: Implications, Adaptive Responses, and Integrated Rhizosphere Management Strategy for Stress Mitigation. Microbiol. Res. 2021, 242, 126626. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Vinocur, B.; Altman, A. Recent Advances in Engineering Plant Tolerance to Abiotic Stress: Achievements and Limitations. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2005, 16, 123–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Rouphael, Y.; Cardarelli, M.; Schwarz, D.; Franken, P.; Colla, G. Effects of Drought on Nutrient Uptake and Assimilation in Vegetable Crops. In Plant Responses to Drought Stress: From Morphological to Molecular Features; Aroca, R., Ed.; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2012; pp. 171–195. ISBN 978-3-642-32653-0. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. da Silva, E.C.; de Albuquerque, M.B.; Neto, A.D.d.A.; Junior, C.D.d.S.; da Silva, E.C.; de Albuquerque, M.B.; Neto, A.D.d.A.; Junior, C.D.d.S. Drought and Its Consequences to Plants—From Individual to Ecosystem. In Responses of Organisms to Water Stress; Akinci, S., Ed.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2013; ISBN 978-953-51-0933-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Yadav, A.N. Plant Microbiomes for Sustainable Agriculture: Current Research and Future Challenges. In Plant Microbiomes for Sustainable Agriculture; Yadav, A., Singh, J., Rastegari, A., Yadav, N., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Iqbal, B.; Li, G.; Alabbosh, K.F.; Hussain, H.; Khan, I.; Tariq, M.; Javed, Q.; Naeem, M.; Ahmad, N. Advancing Environmental Sustainability through Microbial Reprogramming in Growth Improvement, Stress Alleviation, and Phytoremediation. Plant Stress 2023, 10, 100283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Ahmad, P.; Ashraf, M.; Younis, M.; Hu, X.; Kumar, A.; Akram, N.A.; Al-Qurainy, F. Role of Transgenic Plants in Agriculture and Biopharming. Biotechnol. Adv. 2012, 30, 524–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Jalal, A.; da Silva Oliveira, C.E.; Galindo, F.S.; Rosa, P.A.L.; Gato, I.M.B.; de Lima, B.H.; Teixeira Filho, M.C.M. Regulatory Mechanisms of Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria and Plant Nutrition against Abiotic Stresses in Brassicaceae Family. Life 2023, 13, 211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Forni, C.; Duca, D.; Glick, B.R. Mechanisms of Plant Response to Salt and Drought Stress and Their Alteration by Rhizobacteria. Plant Soil 2016, 410, 335–356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Santoyo, G.; Gamalero, E.; Glick, B.R. Mycorrhizal-Bacterial Amelioration of Plant Abiotic and Biotic Stress. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2021, 5, 672881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Joshi, R.; Wani, S.H.; Singh, B.; Bohra, A.; Dar, Z.A.; Lone, A.A.; Pareek, A.; Singla-Pareek, S.L. Transcription Factors and Plants Response to Drought Stress: Current Understanding and Future Directions. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 204078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Martins, S.J.; Rocha, G.A.; de Melo, H.C.; de Castro Georg, R.; Ulhôa, C.J.; de Campos Dianese, É.; Oshiquiri, L.H.; da Cunha, M.G.; da Rocha, M.R.; de Araújo, L.G.; et al. Plant-Associated Bacteria Mitigate Drought Stress in Soybean. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 13676–13686. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Wang, W.; Vinocur, B.; Altman, A. Plant Responses to Drought, Salinity and Extreme Temperatures: Towards Genetic Engineering for Stress Tolerance. Planta 2003, 218, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Okçu, G.; Kaya, M.D.; Atak, M. Effects of Salt and Drought Stresses on Germination and Seedling Growth of Pea (Pisum sativum L.). Turkish J. Agric. For. 2005, 29, 237–242. [Google Scholar]
  16. Hossain, M.S.; Khan, M.A.R.; Mahmud, A.; Ghosh, U.K.; Anik, T.R.; Mayer, D.; Das, A.K.; Mostofa, M.G. Differential Drought Responses of Soybean Genotypes in Relation to Photosynthesis and Growth-Yield Attributes. Plants 2024, 13, 2765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Hussain, M.; Malik, M.A.; Farooq, M.; Ashraf, M.Y.; Cheema, M.A. Improving Drought Tolerance by Exogenous Application of Glycinebetaine and Salicylic Acid in Sunflower. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 2008, 194, 193–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Oguz, M.C.; Aycan, M.; Oguz, E.; Poyraz, I.; Yildiz, M. Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants: Interplay of Molecular, Biochemical and Physiological Responses in Important Development Stages. Physiologia 2022, 2, 180–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nezhadahmadi, A.; Prodhan, Z.H.; Faruq, G. Drought Tolerance in Wheat. Sci. World J. 2013, 2013, 610721. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Comas, L.H.; Becker, S.R.; Cruz, V.M.V.; Byrne, P.F.; Dierig, D.A. Root Traits Contributing to Plant Productivity under Drought. Front. Plant Sci. 2013, 4, 62325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Miller, G.; Suzuki, N.; Ciftci-Yilmaz, S.; Mittler, R. Reactive Oxygen Species Homeostasis and Signalling during Drought and Salinity Stresses. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 453–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Aliniaeifard, S.; Shomali, A.; Seifikalhor, M.; Lastochkina, O. Calcium Signaling in Plants Under Drought. In Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants; Hasanuzzaman, M., Tanveer, M., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 259–298. ISBN 978-3-030-40277-8. [Google Scholar]
  23. Reddy, A.R.; Chaitanya, K.V.; Vivekanandan, M. Drought-Induced Responses of Photosynthesis and Antioxidant Metabolism in Higher Plants. J. Plant Physiol. 2004, 161, 1189–1202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Eriksson, M.C.; Szukala, A.; Tian, B.; Paun, O. Current Research Frontiers in Plant Epigenetics: An Introduction to a Virtual Issue. New Phytol. 2020, 226, 285–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Zhu, J.K. Abiotic Stress Signaling and Responses in Plants. Cell 2016, 167, 313–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Yoshida, T.; Mogami, J.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. ABA-Dependent and ABA-Independent Signaling in Response to Osmotic Stress in Plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2014, 21, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yang, X.; Lu, M.; Wang, Y.; Wang, Y.; Liu, Z.; Chen, S. Response Mechanism of Plants to Drought Stress. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Dekomah, S.D.; Wang, Y.; Qin, T.; Xu, D.; Sun, C.; Yao, P.; Liu, Y.; Bi, Z.; Bai, J. Identification and Expression Analysis of Calcium-Dependent Protein Kinases Gene Family in Potato Under Drought Stress. Front. Genet. 2022, 13, 874397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Kudla, J.; Batistič, O.; Hashimoto, K. Calcium Signals: The Lead Currency of Plant Information Processing. Plant Cell 2010, 22, 541–563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Tuteja, N.; Mahajan, S. Calcium Signaling Network in Plants: An Overview. Plant Signal. Behav. 2007, 2, 79–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Zhao, Y.; Wang, S.; Ma, X.; He, Y.; Zhou, J.; Jiao, S.; Xun, J.; Kong, X.; Wu, X.; Bai, X. GmANKTM21 Positively Regulates Drought Tolerance and Enhanced Stomatal Response through the MAPK Signaling Pathway in Soybean. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2024, 25, 6972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Zhang, J.B.; Wang, X.P.; Wang, Y.C.; Chen, Y.H.; Luo, J.W.; Li, D.D.; Li, X.B. Genome-Wide Identification and Functional Characterization of Cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) MAPKKK Gene Family in Response to Drought Stress. BMC Plant Biol. 2020, 20, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Xu, M.; Li, H.; Liu, Z.N.; Wang, X.H.; Xu, P.; Dai, S.J.; Cao, X.; Cui, X.Y. The Soybean CBL-Interacting Protein Kinase, GmCIPK2, Positively Regulates Drought Tolerance and ABA Signaling. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2021, 167, 980–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Konzen, E.R.; Recchia, G.H.; Cassieri, F.; Gomes Caldas, D.G.; Berny Mier Y Teran, J.C.; Gepts, P.; Tsai, S.M. DREB Genes from Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Show Broad to Specific Abiotic Stress Responses and Distinct Levels of Nucleotide Diversity. Int. J. Genom. 2019, 2019, 9520642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, N.; Yin, Y.; Liu, X.; Tong, S.; Xing, J.; Zhang, Y.; Pudake, R.N.; Izquierdo, E.M.; Peng, H.; Xin, M.; et al. The E3 Ligase TaSAP5 Alters Drought Stress Responses by Promoting the Degradation of DRIP Proteins. Plant Physiol. 2017, 175, 1878–1892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Chen, Y.; Li, Z.; Sun, T.; Wang, D.; Wang, Z.; Zhang, C.; Que, Y.; Guo, J.; Xu, L.; Su, Y. Sugarcane ScDREB2B-1 Confers Drought Stress Tolerance in Transgenic Nicotiana Benthamiana by Regulating the ABA Signal, ROS Level and Stress-Related Gene Expression. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 9557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Le, D.T.; Nishiyama, R.; Watanabe, Y.; Mochida, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K.; Shinozaki, K.; Tran, L.S.P. Genome-Wide Survey and Expression Analysis of the Plant-Specific NAC Transcription Factor Family in Soybean During Development and Dehydration Stress. DNA Res. 2011, 18, 263–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hong, Y.; Zhang, H.; Huang, L.; Li, D.; Song, F. Overexpression of a Stress-Responsive NAC Transcription Factor Gene ONAC022 Improves Drought and Salt Tolerance in Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 166009. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Wang, W.; Vinocur, B.; Shoseyov, O.; Altman, A. Role of Plant Heat-Shock Proteins and Molecular Chaperones in the Abiotic Stress Response. Trends Plant Sci. 2004, 9, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Kotak, S.; Larkindale, J.; Lee, U.; von Koskull-Döring, P.; Vierling, E.; Scharf, K.D. Complexity of the Heat Stress Response in Plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 310–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, G.; Gu, C.; Ye, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Shang, L.; Shao, W.; Hong, S.; Ma, J. Characterization, Evolutionary Analysis, and Expression Pattern Analysis of the Heat Shock Transcription Factors and Drought Stress Response in Heimia Myrtifolia. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Khan, M.S.; Zulfiqar, I. Microbial Mitigation of Drought Stress in Plants: Adaptations to Climate Change. In Abiotic Stress in Plants—Adaptations to Climate Change; Oliveira, M., Fernandes-Silva, A., Eds.; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023; ISBN 978-1-83768-497-7. [Google Scholar]
  43. Fang, Y.; Xiong, L. General Mechanisms of Drought Response and Their Application in Drought Resistance Improvement in Plants. Cell. Mol. Life Sci. 2015, 72, 673–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Qin, B.X.; Tang, D.; Huang, J.; Li, M.; Wu, X.R.; Lu, L.L.; Wang, K.J.; Yu, H.X.; Chen, J.M.; Gu, M.H.; et al. Rice OsGL1-1 Is Involved in Leaf Cuticular Wax and Cuticle Membrane. Mol. Plant 2011, 4, 985–995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. You, J.; Hu, H.; Xiong, L. An Ornithine δ-Aminotransferase Gene OsOAT Confers Drought and Oxidative Stress Tolerance in Rice. Plant Sci. 2012, 197, 59–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Islam, M.A.; Du, H.; Ning, J.; Ye, H.; Xiong, L. Characterization of Glossy1-Homologous Genes in Rice Involved in Leaf Wax Accumulation and Drought Resistance. Plant Mol. Biol. 2009, 70, 443–456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Wang, Y.; Ying, J.; Kuzma, M.; Chalifoux, M.; Sample, A.; McArthur, C.; Uchacz, T.; Sarvas, C.; Wan, J.; Dennis, D.T.; et al. Molecular Tailoring of Farnesylation for Plant Drought Tolerance and Yield Protection. Plant J. 2005, 43, 413–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Fuganti-Pagliarini, R.; Ferreira, L.C.; Rodrigues, F.A.; Molinari, H.B.C.; Marin, S.R.R.; Molinari, M.D.C.; Marcolino-Gomes, J.; Mertz-Henning, L.M.; Farias, J.R.B.; De Oliveira, M.C.N.; et al. Characterization of Soybean Genetically Modified for Drought Tolerance in Field Conditions. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 222043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Deokar, A.A.; Kondawar, V.; Kohli, D.; Aslam, M.; Jain, P.K.; Mohan Karuppayil, S.; Varshney, R.K.; Srinivasan, R.; Srinivasan, R.; Deokar, A.A.; et al. The CarERF Genes in Chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and the Identification of CarERF116 as Abiotic Stress Responsive Transcription Factor. Funct. Integr. Genom. 2014, 15, 27–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Li, L.; Du, Y.; He, C.; Dietrich, C.R.; Li, J.; Ma, X.; Wang, R.; Liu, Q.; Liu, S.; Wang, G.; et al. Maize Glossy6 Is Involved in Cuticular Wax Deposition and Drought Tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2019, 70, 3089–3099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ahn, H.; Jung, I.; Shin, S.J.; Park, J.; Rhee, S.; Kim, J.K.; Jung, W.; Kwon, H.B.; Kim, S. Transcriptional Network Analysis Reveals Drought Resistance Mechanisms of AP2/ERF Transgenic Rice. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 262629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Yang, J.; Zhao, S.; Zhao, B.; Li, C. Overexpression of TaLEA3 Induces Rapid Stomatal Closure under Drought Stress in Phellodendron Amurense Rupr. Plant Sci. 2018, 277, 100–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Wang, Y.; Beaith, M.; Chalifoux, M.; Ying, J.; Uchacz, T.; Sarvas, C.; Griffiths, R.; Kuzma, M.; Wan, J.; Huang, Y. Shoot-Specific down-Regulation of Protein Farnesyltransferase (α-Subunit) for Yield Protection against Drought in Canola. Mol. Plant 2009, 2, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Bartels, D.; Sunkar, R. Drought and Salt Tolerance in Plants. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 2005, 24, 23–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Laporte, M.M.; Shen, B.; Tarczynski, M.C. Engineering for Drought Avoidance: Expression of Maize NADP-malic Enzyme in Tobacco Results in Altered Stomatal Function. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 699–705. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Babu, R.C.; Zhang, J.; Blum, A.; Ho, T.H.D.; Wu, R.; Nguyen, H.T. HVA1, a LEA Gene from Barley Confers Dehydration Tolerance in Transgenic Rice (Oryza sativa L.) via Cell Membrane Protection. Plant Sci. 2004, 166, 855–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. El-Esawi, M.A.; Alayafi, A.A. Overexpression of StDREB2 Transcription Factor Enhances Drought Stress Tolerance in Cotton (Gossypium barbadense L.). Genes 2019, 10, 142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Zhu, M.; Meng, X.; Cai, J.; Li, G.; Dong, T.; Li, Z. Basic Leucine Zipper Transcription Factor SlbZIP1 Mediates Salt and Drought Stress Tolerance in Tomato. BMC Plant Biol. 2018, 18, 83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vivek, P.J.; Tuteja, N.; Soniya, E.V. CDPK1 from Ginger Promotes Salinity and Drought Stress Tolerance without Yield Penalty by Improving Growth and Photosynthesis in Nicotiana Tabacum. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e76392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Park, B.J.; Liu, Z.; Kanno, A.; Kameya, T. Genetic Improvement of Chinese Cabbage for Salt and Drought Tolerance by Constitutive Expression of a B. Napus LEA Gene. Plant Sci. 2005, 169, 553–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Poudel, M.; Mendes, R.; Costa, L.A.S.; Bueno, C.G.; Meng, Y.; Folimonova, S.Y.; Garrett, K.A.; Martins, S.J. The Role of Plant-Associated Bacteria, Fungi, and Viruses in Drought Stress Mitigation. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 743512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Basyal, B. Plant-Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Association Under Drought Stress. In Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in Sustainable Agriculture: Nutrient and Crop Management; Parihar, M., Rakshit, A., Adholeya, A., Chen, Y., Eds.; Springer Nature: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2024; pp. 211–222. ISBN 9789819703005. [Google Scholar]
  63. Alwutayd, K.M.; Rawat, A.A.; Sheikh, A.H.; Almeida-Trapp, M.; Veluchamy, A.; Jalal, R.; Karampelias, M.; Froehlich, K.; Alzaed, W.; Tabassum, N.; et al. Microbe-induced Drought Tolerance by ABA -mediated Root Architecture and Epigenetic Reprogramming. EMBO Rep. 2023, 24, EMBR202256754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Halo, B.A.; Al-Yahyai, R.; Al-Sadi, A.; Al-Sibani, A. Desert Endophytic Fungi Improve Reproductive, Morphological, Biochemical, Yield and Fruit Quality Characteristics of Tomato under Drought Stress. Arab. Gulf J. Sci. Res. 2023, 41, 638–655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Encabo, J.R.; Macalalad-Cabral, R.J.A.; Matres, J.M.K.; Coronejo, S.C.T.P.; Jonson, G.B.; Kishima, Y.; Henry, A.; Choi, I.R. Infection with an Asymptomatic Virus in Rice Results in a Delayed Drought Response. Funct. Plant Biol. 2020, 47, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Mirzayeva, S.; Huseynova, I.; Özmen, C.Y.; Ergül, A. Physiology and Gene Expression Analysis of Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum L.) Exposed to Combined-Virus and Drought Stresses. Plant Pathol. J. 2023, 39, 466–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Sandhya, V.; Ali, S.Z.; Grover, M.; Reddy, G.; Venkateswarlu, B. Alleviation of Drought Stress Effects in Sunflower Seedlings by the Exopolysaccharides Producing Pseudomonas putida Strain GAP-P45. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2009, 46, 17–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Timmusk, S.; Abd El-Daim, I.A.; Copolovici, L.; Tanilas, T.; Kännaste, A.; Behers, L.; Nevo, E.; Seisenbaeva, G.; Stenström, E.; Niinemets, Ü. Drought-Tolerance of Wheat Improved by Rhizosphere Bacteria from Harsh Environments: Enhanced Biomass Production and Reduced Emissions of Stress Volatiles. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e96086. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Vessey, J.K. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria as Biofertilizers. Plant Soil 2003, 255, 571–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Timmusk, S.; Paalme, V.; Pavlicek, T.; Bergquist, J.; Vangala, A.; Danilas, T.; Nevo, E. Bacterial Distribution in the Rhizosphere of Wild Barley under Contrasting Microclimates. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e17968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Lim, J.H.; Kim, S.D. Induction of Drought Stress Resistance by Multi-Functional PGPR Bacillus licheniformis K11 in Pepper. Plant Pathol. J. 2013, 29, 201–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Naveed, M.; Mitter, B.; Reichenauer, T.G.; Wieczorek, K.; Sessitsch, A. Increased Drought Stress Resilience of Maize through Endophytic Colonization by Burkholderia Phytofirmans PsJN and Enterobacter Sp. FD17. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2014, 97, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Figueiredo, M.V.B.; Burity, H.A.; Martínez, C.R.; Chanway, C.P. Alleviation of Drought Stress in the Common Bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) by Co-Inoculation with Paenibacillus Polymyxa and Rhizobium Tropici. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2008, 40, 182–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Heidari, M.; Golpayegani, A. Effects of Water Stress and Inoculation with Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria (PGPR) on Antioxidant Status and Photosynthetic Pigments in Basil (Ocimum basilicum L.). J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci. 2012, 11, 57–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Harman, G.E. Myths and Dogmas of Biocontrol Changes in Perceptions Derived from Research on Trichoderma Harzinum T-22. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 2000, 84, 377–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Silva, R.; Filgueiras, L.; Santos, B.; Coelho, M.; Silva, M.; Estrada-Bonilla, G.; Vidal, M.; Baldani, J.I.; Meneses, C. Gluconacetobacter Diazotrophicus Changes The Molecular Mechanisms of Root Development in Oryza sativa L. Growing Under Water Stress. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2020, 21, 333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Sarma, R.K.; Saikia, R. Alleviation of Drought Stress in Mung Bean by Strain Pseudomonas Aeruginosa GGRJ21. Plant Soil 2013, 377, 111–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Manjunatha, B.S.; Nivetha, N.; Krishna, G.K.; Elangovan, A.; Pushkar, S.; Chandrashekar, N.; Aggarwal, C.; Asha, A.D.; Chinnusamy, V.; Raipuria, R.K.; et al. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Shewanella Putrefaciens and Cronobacter Dublinensis Enhance Drought Tolerance of Pearl Millet by Modulating Hormones and Stress-Responsive Genes. Physiol. Plant. 2022, 174, e13676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Khan, Z.; Rho, H.; Firrincieli, A.; Hung, S.H.; Luna, V.; Masciarelli, O.; Kim, S.H.; Doty, S.L. Growth Enhancement and Drought Tolerance of Hybrid Poplar upon Inoculation with Endophyte Consortia. Curr. Plant Biol. 2016, 6, 38–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Jochum, M.D.; McWilliams, K.L.; Borrego, E.J.; Kolomiets, M.V.; Niu, G.; Pierson, E.A.; Jo, Y.K. Bioprospecting Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria That Mitigate Drought Stress in Grasses. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 466447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Gowtham, H.G.; Brijesh Singh, S.; Murali, M.; Shilpa, N.; Prasad, M.; Aiyaz, M.; Amruthesh, K.N.; Niranjana, S.R. Induction of Drought Tolerance in Tomato upon the Application of ACC Deaminase Producing Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacterium Bacillus subtilis Rhizo SF 48. Microbiol. Res. 2020, 234, 126422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Chiappero, J.; Cappellari, L.d.R.; Sosa Alderete, L.G.; Palermo, T.B.; Banchio, E. Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria Improve the Antioxidant Status in Mentha Piperita Grown under Drought Stress Leading to an Enhancement of Plant Growth and Total Phenolic Content. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Liu, B.B.; Li, M.; Li, Q.M.; Cui, Q.Q.; Zhang, W.D.; Ai, X.Z.; Bi, H.G. Combined Effects of Elevated CO2 Concentration and Drought Stress on Photosynthetic Performance and Leaf Structure of Cucumber (Cucumis sativus L.) Seedlings. Int. J. Photosynth. Res. 2018, 56, 942–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Begum, N.; Ahanger, M.A.; Su, Y.; Lei, Y.; Mustafa, N.S.A.; Ahmad, P.; Zhang, L. Improved Drought Tolerance by AMF Inoculation in Maize (Zea mays) Involves Physiological and Biochemical Implications. Plants 2019, 8, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kour, D.; Rana, K.L.; Kaur, T.; Sheikh, I.; Yadav, A.N.; Kumar, V.; Dhaliwal, H.S.; Saxena, A.K. Microbe-Mediated Alleviation of Drought Stress and Acquisition of Phosphorus in Great Millet (Sorghum bicolour L.) by Drought-Adaptive and Phosphorus-Solubilizing Microbes. Biocatal. Agric. Biotechnol. 2020, 23, 101501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Golam Dastogeer, K.M.; Chakraborty, A.; Alam Sarker, M.S.; Akter, M.A. Roles of Fungal Endophytes and Viruses in Mediating Drought Stress Tolerance in Plants. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2020, 24, 1497–1512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Vurukonda, S.S.K.P.; Vardharajula, S.; Shrivastava, M.; SkZ, A. Enhancement of Drought Stress Tolerance in Crops by Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria. Microbiol. Res. 2016, 184, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Tang, H.; Hassan, M.U.; Feng, L.; Nawaz, M.; Shah, A.N.; Qari, S.H.; Liu, Y.; Miao, J. The Critical Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Improve Drought Tolerance and Nitrogen Use Efficiency in Crops. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 919166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  89. Azeem, M.; Javed, S.; Zahoor, A.F. Bacillus Species as Potential Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Drought Stress Resilience. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2023, 70, 59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Fatma, M.; Asgher, M.; Iqbal, N.; Rasheed, F.; Sehar, Z.; Sofo, A.; Khan, N.A. Ethylene Signaling under Stressful Environments: Analyzing Collaborative Knowledge. Plants 2022, 11, 2211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Shahid, M.; Singh, U.B.; Khan, M.S.; Singh, P.; Kumar, R.; Singh, R.N.; Kumar, A.; Singh, H.V. Bacterial ACC Deaminase: Insights into Enzymology, Biochemistry, Genetics, and Potential Role in Amelioration of Environmental Stress in Crop Plants. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1132770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Gupta, A.; Rai, S.; Bano, A.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, M.; Binsuwaidan, R.; Suhail Khan, M.; Upadhyay, T.K.; Alshammari, N.; Saeed, M.; et al. ACC Deaminase Produced by PGPR Mitigates the Adverse Effect of Osmotic and Salinity Stresses in Pisum Sativum through Modulating the Antioxidants Activities. Plants 2022, 11, 3419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Bhagat, N.; Raghav, M.; Dubey, S.; Bedi, N. Bacterial Exopolysaccharides: Insight into Their Role in Plant Abiotic Stress Tolerance. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2021, 31, 1045–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Bücking, H.; Kafle, A. Role of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi in the Nitrogen Uptake of Plants: Current Knowledge and Research Gaps. Agronomy 2015, 5, 587–612. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Nio, S.A.; Ludong, D.P.M. Beneficial Root-Associated Microbiome during Drought and Flooding Stress in Plants. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2023, 26, 287–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Chieb, M.; Gachomo, E.W. The Role of Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria in Plant Drought Stress Responses. BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Goyal, D.; Kumar, S.; Meena, D.; Solanki, S.S.; Swaroop, S.; Pandey, J. Selection of ACC Deaminase Positive, Thermohalotolerant and Drought Tolerance Enhancing Plant Growth-promoting Bacteria from Rhizospheres of Cyamopsis Tetragonoloba Grown in Arid Regions. Lett. Appl. Microbiol. 2022, 74, 519–535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ullah, A.; Nisar, M.; Ali, H.; Hazrat, A.; Hayat, K.; Keerio, A.A.; Ihsan, M.; Laiq, M.; Ullah, S.; Fahad, S.; et al. Drought Tolerance Improvement in Plants: An Endophytic Bacterial Approach. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2019, 103, 7385–7397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Ait-El-Mokhtar, M.; Meddich, A.; Baslam, M. Plant-Microbiome Interactions under Drought—Insights from the Molecular Machinist’s Toolbox. Front. Sustain. Food Syst. 2023, 7, 1253735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nakashima, K.; Ito, Y.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Transcriptional Regulatory Networks in Response to Abiotic Stresses in Arabidopsis and Grasses. Plant Physiol. 2009, 149, 88–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Di Salvo, L.P.; Cellucci, G.C.; Carlino, M.E.; García de Salamone, I.E. Plant Growth-Promoting Rhizobacteria Inoculation and Nitrogen Fertilization Increase Maize (Zea mays L.) Grain Yield and Modified Rhizosphere Microbial Communities. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2018, 126, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Asadollahi, M.; Iranbakhsh, A.; Ahmadvand, R.; Ebadi, M.; Mehregan, I. Synergetic Effect of Water Deficit and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis on the Expression of Aquaporins in Wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) Roots: Insights from NGS RNA-Sequencing. Physiol. Mol. Biol. Plants 2023, 29, 195–208. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Zhang, Q.; Yang, W.; Wang, M.; Chen, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wei, Y.; Chang, Q.; Gong, M. Transcriptome Analysis Reveals the Molecular Mechanisms for Mycorrhiza-Enhanced Drought Tolerance in Maize by Regulating the Ca2+ Signaling Pathway. J. Fungi 2025, 11, 375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Xie, W.; Hao, Z.; Zhou, X.; Jiang, X.; Xu, L.; Wu, S.; Zhao, A.; Zhang, X.; Chen, B. Arbuscular Mycorrhiza Facilitates the Accumulation of Glycyrrhizin and Liquiritin in Glycyrrhiza Uralensis under Drought Stress. Mycorrhiza 2018, 28, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Aroca, R.; Porcel, R.; Ruiz-Lozano, J.M. How Does Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Regulate Root Hydraulic Properties and Plasma Membrane Aquaporins in Phaseolus Vulgaris under Drought, Cold or Salinity Stresses? New Phytol. 2007, 173, 808–816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  106. Jia-Dong, H.; Tao, D.; Hui-Hui, W.; Zou, Y.N.; Wu, Q.S.; Kamil, K. Mycorrhizas Induce Diverse Responses of Root TIP Aquaporin Gene Expression to Drought Stress in Trifoliate Orange. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 243, 64–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Shinozaki, K.; Yamaguchi-Shinozaki, K. Gene Networks Involved in Drought Stress Response and Tolerance. J. Exp. Bot. 2007, 58, 221–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Vargas, L.; Brígida, A.B.S.; Mota Filho, J.P.; De Carvalho, T.G.; Rojas, C.A.; Vaneechoutte, D.; Van Bel, M.; Farrinelli, L.; Ferreira, P.C.G.; Vandepoele, K.; et al. Drought Tolerance Conferred to Sugarcane by Association with Gluconacetobacter Diazotrophicus: A Transcriptomic View of Hormone Pathways. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e114744. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Cho, S.M.; Kang, B.R.; Kim, Y.C. Transcriptome Analysis of Induced Systemic Drought Tolerance Elicited by Pseudomonas Chlororaphis O6 in Arabidopsis Thaliana. Plant Pathol. J. 2013, 29, 209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Kasim, W.A.; Osman, M.E.; Omar, M.N.; Abd El-Daim, I.A.; Bejai, S.; Meijer, J. Control of Drought Stress in Wheat Using Plant-Growth-Promoting Bacteria. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2012, 32, 122–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Guarnizo, Á.L.; Navarro-Ródenas, A.; Calvo-Polanco, M.; Marqués-Gálvez, J.E.; Morte, A. A Mycorrhizal Helper Bacterium Alleviates Drought Stress in Mycorrhizal Helianthemum Almeriense Plants by Regulating Water Relations and Plant Hormones. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2023, 207, 105228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Wang, D.C.; Jiang, C.H.; Zhang, L.N.; Chen, L.; Zhang, X.Y.; Guo, J.H. Biofilms Positively Contribute to Bacillus Amyloliquefaciens 54-Induced Drought Tolerance in Tomato Plants. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2019, 20, 6271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Khan, M.S. The Role of DREB Transcription Factors in Abiotic Stress Tolerance of Plants. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2011, 25, 2433–2442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Lucas, S.; Durmaz, E.; Akpnar, B.A.; Budak, H. The Drought Response Displayed by a DRE-Binding Protein from Triticum Dicoccoides. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2011, 49, 346–351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Vaishnav, A.; Choudhary, D.K. Regulation of Drought-Responsive Gene Expression in Glycine max L. Merrill Is Mediated Through Pseudomonas Simiae Strain AU. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2018, 38, 333–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Egamberdieva, D.; Wirth, S.J.; Alqarawi, A.A.; Abd-Allah, E.F.; Hashem, A. Phytohormones and Beneficial Microbes: Essential Components for Plants to Balance Stress and Fitness. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 278255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Subramanian, S.; Mitkus, E.; Souleimanov, A.; Smith, D.L. Lipo-Chitooligosaccharide and Thuricin 17 Act as Plant Growth Promoters and Alleviate Drought Stress in Arabidopsis Thaliana. Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1184158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Curá, J.A.; Franz, D.R.; Filosofía, J.E.; Balestrasse, K.B.; Burgueño, L.E. Inoculation with Azospirillum Sp. and Herbaspirillum Sp. Bacteria Increases the Tolerance of Maize to Drought Stress. Microorganisms 2017, 5, 41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Mishra, A.; Kar, S.; Bisht, N.; Mishra, S.K.; Chauhan, P.S. Synergistic Effect of Adathoda Vasica Plant-Derived Biostimulant and PGPR on Zea mays L. for Drought Stress Management. Microbiol. Res. 2025, 290, 127968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Kaya, C.; Uğurlar, F.; Adamakis, I.D.S. Epigenetic and Hormonal Modulation in Plant–Plant Growth-Promoting Microorganism Symbiosis for Drought-Resilient Agriculture. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 16064. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Ma, J.F.; Mitani, N.; Nagao, S.; Konishi, S.; Tamai, K.; Iwashita, T.; Yano, M. Characterization of the Silicon Uptake System and Molecular Mapping of the Silicon Transporter Gene in Rice. Plant Physiol. 2004, 136, 3284–3289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Kubicek, C.P.; Herrera-Estrella, A.; Seidl-Seiboth, V.; Martinez, D.A.; Druzhinina, I.S.; Thon, M.; Zeilinger, S.; Casas-Flores, S.; Horwitz, B.A.; Mukherjee, P.K.; et al. Comparative Genome Sequence Analysis Underscores Mycoparasitism as the Ancestral Life Style of Trichoderma. Genome Biol. 2011, 12, R40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Xu, Y.; Lu, Y.; Xie, C.; Gao, S.; Wan, J.; Prasanna, B.M. Erratum to: Whole-Genome Strategies for Marker-Assisted Plant Breeding. Mol. Breed. 2012, 29, 855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Ding, J.; Ali, F.; Chen, G.; Li, H.; Mahuku, G.; Yang, N.; Narro, L.; Magorokosho, C.; Makumbi, D.; Yan, J. Genome-Wide Association Mapping Reveals Novel Sources of Resistance to Northern Corn Leaf Blight in Maize. BMC Plant Biol. 2015, 15, 206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  125. Nordstedt, N.P.; Jones, M.L. Genomic Analysis of Serratia Plymuthica MBSA-MJ1: A Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria That Improves Water Stress Tolerance in Greenhouse Ornamentals. Front. Microbiol. 2021, 12, 653556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Luziatelli, F.; Ficca, A.G.; Bonini, P.; Muleo, R.; Gatti, L.; Meneghini, M.; Tronati, M.; Melini, F.; Ruzzi, M. A Genetic and Metabolomic Perspective on the Production of Indole-3-Acetic Acid by Pantoea Agglomerans and Use of Their Metabolites as Biostimulants in Plant Nurseries. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 547862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. García-Fontana, C.; Vilchez, J.I.; Manzanera, M. Proteome Comparison Between Natural Desiccation-Tolerant Plants and Drought-Protected Caspicum annuum Plants by Microbacterium Sp. 3J1. Front. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 554166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Wang, L.; Lei, X.; Yang, J.; Wang, S.; Liu, Y.; Liang, W. Comparative Transcriptome Analysis Reveals That Photosynthesis Contributes to Drought Tolerance of Nostoc flagelliforme (Nostocales, Cyanobacteria). Phycologia 2018, 57, 113–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  129. Wu, F.; Ding, Y.; Nie, Y.; Wang, X.J.; An, Y.Q.; Roessner, U.; Walker, R.; Du, B.; Bai, J.G. Plant Metabolomics Integrated with Transcriptomics and Rhizospheric Bacterial Community Indicates the Mitigation Effects of Klebsiella Oxytoca P620 on P-Hydroxybenzoic Acid Stress in Cucumber. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 415, 125756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Morcillo, R.J.L.; Vílchez, J.I.; Zhang, S.; Kaushal, R.; He, D.; Zi, H.; Liu, R.; Niehaus, K.; Handa, A.K.; Zhang, H. Plant Transcriptome Reprograming and Bacterial Extracellular Metabolites Underlying Tomato Drought Resistance Triggered by a Beneficial Soil Bacteria. Metabolites 2021, 11, 369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  131. Zhang, Z.C.; Wang, K.; Hao, F.H.; Shang, J.L.; Tang, H.R.; Qiu, B.S. New Types of ATP-Grasp Ligase Are Associated with the Novel Pathway for Complicated Mycosporine-like Amino Acid Production in Desiccation-Tolerant Cyanobacteria. Environ. Microbiol. 2021, 23, 6420–6432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  132. Horgan, R.P.; Kenny, L.C. ‘Omic’ Technologies: Genomics, Transcriptomics, Proteomics and Metabolomics. Obstet. Gynaecol. 2011, 13, 189–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Lämke, J.; Bäurle, I. Epigenetic and Chromatin-Based Mechanisms in Environmental Stress Adaptation and Stress Memory in Plants. Genome Biol. 2017, 18, 124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Da, K.; Nowak, J.; Flinn, B. Potato Cytosine Methylation and Gene Expression Changes Induced by a Beneficial Bacterial Endophyte, Burkholderia Phytofirmans Strain PsJN. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2012, 50, 24–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Gagné-Bourque, F.; Mayer, B.F.; Charron, J.B.; Vali, H.; Bertrand, A.; Jabaji, S. Accelerated Growth Rate and Increased Drought Stress Resilience of the Model Grass Brachypodium Distachyon Colonized by Bacillus Subtilis B26. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0130456. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Kim, J.M.; To, T.K.; Nishioka, T.; Seki, M. Chromatin Regulation Functions in Plant Abiotic Stress Responses. Plant Cell Environ. 2010, 33, 604–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Chinnusamy, V.; Zhu, J.K. Epigenetic Regulation of Stress Responses in Plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2009, 12, 133–139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Chang, Y.N.; Zhu, C.; Jiang, J.; Zhang, H.; Zhu, J.K.; Duan, C.G. Epigenetic Regulation in Plant Abiotic Stress Responses. J. Integr. Plant Biol. 2020, 62, 563–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ijms 27 01139 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the consequences of drought stress in plants, including morphophysiological, biochemical, anatomical, and molecular responses. ABA, abscisic acid; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; CAT, catalase; DSP, dehydration stress proteins; GB, glycine betaine; GSH, glutathione; GR, glutathione reductase; LEA, late embryogenesis abundant; MDHA, monodehydroascorbate; NIDHAR, NADPH-dependent enzymes like nitrate reductase; Pro, proline; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; α-toc, α-tocopherol. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Figure 1. Overview of the consequences of drought stress in plants, including morphophysiological, biochemical, anatomical, and molecular responses. ABA, abscisic acid; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; CAT, catalase; DSP, dehydration stress proteins; GB, glycine betaine; GSH, glutathione; GR, glutathione reductase; LEA, late embryogenesis abundant; MDHA, monodehydroascorbate; NIDHAR, NADPH-dependent enzymes like nitrate reductase; Pro, proline; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; α-toc, α-tocopherol. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Ijms 27 01139 g001
Ijms 27 01139 g002
Figure 2. Schematic representation of plant–microbe interactions that enhance drought resilience. Microbial inoculation improves root architecture, water retention, antioxidant defense, and systemic tolerance to drought, while AMF hyphae and microbial consortia extend root reach and enhance soil water acquisition. AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; PGPR, plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; CK, cytokinin; ACC deaminase, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase; EPS, exopolysaccharides; VOCs, volatile organic compounds. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Figure 2. Schematic representation of plant–microbe interactions that enhance drought resilience. Microbial inoculation improves root architecture, water retention, antioxidant defense, and systemic tolerance to drought, while AMF hyphae and microbial consortia extend root reach and enhance soil water acquisition. AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; PGPR, plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; CK, cytokinin; ACC deaminase, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate deaminase; EPS, exopolysaccharides; VOCs, volatile organic compounds. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Ijms 27 01139 g002
Ijms 27 01139 g003
Figure 3. Microbial-mediated enhancement of plant drought tolerance. ABA, abscisic acid; AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; CAT, catalase; EPS, exopolysaccharides; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; PGPR, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Figure 3. Microbial-mediated enhancement of plant drought tolerance. ABA, abscisic acid; AMF, arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; CAT, catalase; EPS, exopolysaccharides; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; PGPR, plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Ijms 27 01139 g003
Ijms 27 01139 g004
Figure 4. Microbe-induced molecular networks integrating plant stress-responsive pathways under drought. ABA, abscisic acid; ACC, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate; AHLs, N-acyl homoserine lactones; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; AREB/ABF, ABA-responsive element-binding protein/ABA-binding factor; Ca2+, calcium ion; CAM, calmodulin; CAT, catalase; CDPKs, calcium-dependent protein kinases; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; DREB, dehydration-responsive element-binding protein; EPS, exopolysaccharides; HSPs, heat shock proteins; JA, jasmonic acid; LEA, late embryogenesis abundant (proteins); LysM-RLK, LysM receptor-like kinase; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MAPKK, MAPK kinase; MAPKKK, MAPK kinase kinase; miRNA, microRNA; Myc-LCO, mycorrhizal lipochitooligosaccharide; MYB, myeloblastosis transcription factor; NAC, NAM, ATAF, and CUC transcription factor family; NO, nitric oxide; PGPR, plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria; PRR, pattern recognition receptor; RNS, reactive nitrogen species; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; SYMRK, symbiosis receptor-like kinase; VOCs, volatile organic compounds; WRKY, WRKY transcription factor family. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Figure 4. Microbe-induced molecular networks integrating plant stress-responsive pathways under drought. ABA, abscisic acid; ACC, 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate; AHLs, N-acyl homoserine lactones; APX, ascorbate peroxidase; AREB/ABF, ABA-responsive element-binding protein/ABA-binding factor; Ca2+, calcium ion; CAM, calmodulin; CAT, catalase; CDPKs, calcium-dependent protein kinases; DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; DREB, dehydration-responsive element-binding protein; EPS, exopolysaccharides; HSPs, heat shock proteins; JA, jasmonic acid; LEA, late embryogenesis abundant (proteins); LysM-RLK, LysM receptor-like kinase; MAPK, mitogen-activated protein kinase; MAPKK, MAPK kinase; MAPKKK, MAPK kinase kinase; miRNA, microRNA; Myc-LCO, mycorrhizal lipochitooligosaccharide; MYB, myeloblastosis transcription factor; NAC, NAM, ATAF, and CUC transcription factor family; NO, nitric oxide; PGPR, plant growth–promoting rhizobacteria; PRR, pattern recognition receptor; RNS, reactive nitrogen species; ROS, reactive oxygen species; SOD, superoxide dismutase; SYMRK, symbiosis receptor-like kinase; VOCs, volatile organic compounds; WRKY, WRKY transcription factor family. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Ijms 27 01139 g004
Ijms 27 01139 g005
Figure 5. Integrated omics and epigenetic regulation in plant drought stress response and plant-microbe interactions. DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; GWAS, genome-wide association studies; miRNAs, microRNAs; PTMs, post-translational modifications; QTL, quantitative trait loci; RNA-seq, RNA sequencing; siRNAs, small interfering RNAs. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Figure 5. Integrated omics and epigenetic regulation in plant drought stress response and plant-microbe interactions. DNA, deoxyribonucleic acid; GWAS, genome-wide association studies; miRNAs, microRNAs; PTMs, post-translational modifications; QTL, quantitative trait loci; RNA-seq, RNA sequencing; siRNAs, small interfering RNAs. Figure created using Adobe Photoshop (Adobe Systems, San Jose, CA, USA).
Ijms 27 01139 g005
Table 1. Representative transgenic plants overexpressing drought-responsive genes and their associated tolerance-enhancing traits.
Table 1. Representative transgenic plants overexpressing drought-responsive genes and their associated tolerance-enhancing traits.
Donor PlantTransgenic PlantGene(s)Traits ImprovedReferences
Pisum sativumOryza sativaMnSODIncreased SOD activity; enhanced oxidative stress protection[47]
Arabidopsis thalianaGlycine maxAtDREB1A, AtDREB2C, AtAREB1Elevated proline accumulation; enhanced transcriptional activation of drought-responsive pathways[48]
Cicer arietinumA. thalianaCarERF116Increased LEA gene expression[49]
Zea maysZ. mays mutantgl6Improved cuticular wax transport; enhanced leaf surface integrity under drought[50]
O. sativaTransgenic
Nipponbare rice
(ERF71 line)		OsERF71Enhanced drought-responsive phenotypic traits[51]
Triticum aestivumNicotiana tabacumTaLEA3Regulation of stomatal closure; improved water-use efficiency[52]
A. thalianaBrassica napusAtFTARegulation of stomatal closure[53]
Mesembryanthemum crystallinumN. tabacumMT1Improved photosynthesis[54]
Z. maysA. thalianaChl-NADP-MEEnhanced stomatal conductance and biomass under drought stress[55]
Hordeum vulgareO. sativaHVA1Improved shoot growth, RWC, and water potential[56]
Solanum tuberosumGossypium barbadenseStDREB2Activation of drought-responsive genes; enhanced antioxidant defense[57]
S. lycopersicumS. lycopersicumSlbZIP1Increased malondialdehyde regulation; reduced transpiration rate[58]
Zingiber officinaleN. tabacumZoCDPK1ABA hypersensitivity shown; improved stomatal regulation[59]
B. napusB. rapaLEAIncreased shoot growth and survivability[60]
ABA, abscisic acid; AtAREB1, Arabidopsis thaliana ABA-responsive element-binding protein 1 gene; AtDREB1A, A. thaliana dehydration-responsive element-binding protein 1A gene; AtDREB2C, A. thaliana dehydration-responsive element-binding protein 2C gene; AtFTA, A. thaliana farnesyltransferase A gene; CarERF116, Cicer arietinum ethylene-responsive factor 116 gene; Chl-NADP-ME, chloroplastic NADP-dependent malic enzyme gene; gl6, glossy6 gene; HVA1, late embryogenesis abundant protein 1 gene; LEA, late embryogenesis abundant proteins gene; MnSOD, manganese superoxide dismutase gene; MT1, metallothionein 1 gene; RWC, relative water content; SlbZIP1, basic leucine zipper protein 1 gene; SOD, superoxide dismutase; ZoCDPK1, calcium-dependent protein kinase 1 gene.
Table 2. Role of beneficial microbial species in mitigating drought stress in plants.
Table 2. Role of beneficial microbial species in mitigating drought stress in plants.
Type of
Microbes		MicrobesPlantsBeneficial FeaturesReferences
Prokaryotic bacteriaPseudomonas putida GAP-P45Helianthus annuusProduced exopolysaccharides; improved soil aggregation and moisture retention[67]
Bacillus thuringiensis AZP2Triticum aestivumReleased VOCs that enhanced drought resilience[68]
P. fluorescensVarious plantsSynthesized IAA; enhanced root growth and nutrient uptake[69]
Paenibacillus polymyxaArabidopsis thaliana, Swedish wheatProduced cytokinins and gibberellins; promoted growth under drought stress[70]
B. licheniformis strain K11Capsicum annuumInduced stress-responsive genes and proteins[71]
Burkholderia phytofirmans; Enterobacter sp. FD17Zea maysEnhanced photosynthesis and biomass accumulation[72]
Rhizobium sp. strain YAS34Phaseolus vulgarisImproved nodulation, nitrogen uptake, and ABA accumulation[73]
Pseudomonas spp.Ocimum basilicumEnhanced antioxidant defense and osmotic protection[74]
Trichoderma spp.Glycine maxSecreted enzymes that degraded fungal cell walls; induced plant defense mechanisms[75]
Gluconacetobacter diazotrophicus Pal5Oryza sativaEnhanced root architecture and osmotic adjustment[76]
P. aeruginosa GGRJ21Vigna radiataBoosted ROS-scavenging enzymes, osmolytes, and RWC; increased root and shoot growth[77]
Shewanella putrefaciens MCL-1; Cronobacter dublinensis MKS-1Pennisetum glaucumRegulated root development; activated drought-responsive genes[78]
B. subtilis; B. thuringiensis; B. cereusGlycine maxEnhanced stomatal conductance and photosynthetic performance[13]
B. subtilis; B. thuringiensis; B. megateriumCicer arietinumIncreased osmolytes, organic acids, and antioxidant enzymes[79]
Bacillus spp.; Enterobacter spp.T. aestivum; Z. maysEnhanced IAA and salicylic acid production[80]
B. subtilis Rhizo SF48Solanum lycopersicumEnhanced seed germination and seedling vigor[81]
P. fluorescens WCS417; B. amyloliquefaciens GB03Mentha piperitaElevated phenolic content and antioxidant protection[82]
Prokaryotic bacteria + mycorrhizal fungusP. chlororaphis TSAU13 + Funneliformis mosseaeCucumis sativusIncreased IAA production; enhanced plant–fungus synergistic protection[83]
Yeasts + bacteria consortiumRhodotorula graminis + Burkholderia vietnamiensis, R. tropici, Acinetobacter calcoaceticus, Sphingomonas yanoikuyaePopulus deltoidsBoosted plant development, stress tolerance, and oxidative stress alleviation[79]
Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungusFunneliformis versiformisZ. maysEnhanced nutrient absorption, osmolyte accumulation, and antioxidant system[84]
Bacteria + soil fungusStreptomyces laurentii EU-LWT3–69 + Penicillium sp. EU-DSF-10Sorghum bicolorEnhanced osmolytes, deaminase activity, P-solubilization; reduced lipid peroxidation[85]
Endophytic fungusNeotyphodium coenophialum (syn. Epichloë coenophiala)Lolium arundinaceum; Nicotiana benthamianaModulated gene expression; improved osmotic balance, antioxidant activity, and leaf gas exchange[86]
ABA, abscisic acid; IAA, indole-3-acetic acid; ROS, reactive oxygen species; RWC, relative water content; VOCs, volatile organic compounds.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shams, S.-N.-U.; Khan, M.A.R.; Islam, S.S.; Jarin, A.; Islam, M.N.; Anik, T.R.; Abdelrahman, M.; Ha, C.V.; Montague, T.; Tran, L.-S.P. Harnessing Plant Microbiomes to Modulate Molecular Signaling and Regulatory Networks in Drought Stress Adaptation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2026, 27, 1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031139

AMA Style

Shams S-N-U, Khan MAR, Islam SS, Jarin A, Islam MN, Anik TR, Abdelrahman M, Ha CV, Montague T, Tran L-SP. Harnessing Plant Microbiomes to Modulate Molecular Signaling and Regulatory Networks in Drought Stress Adaptation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences. 2026; 27(3):1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031139

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shams, Shahjadi-Nur-Us, Md Arifur Rahman Khan, Sayed Shahidul Islam, Afsana Jarin, Md. Nahidul Islam, Touhidur Rahman Anik, Mostafa Abdelrahman, Chien Van Ha, Thayne Montague, and Lam-Son Phan Tran. 2026. "Harnessing Plant Microbiomes to Modulate Molecular Signaling and Regulatory Networks in Drought Stress Adaptation" International Journal of Molecular Sciences 27, no. 3: 1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031139

APA Style

Shams, S.-N.-U., Khan, M. A. R., Islam, S. S., Jarin, A., Islam, M. N., Anik, T. R., Abdelrahman, M., Ha, C. V., Montague, T., & Tran, L.-S. P. (2026). Harnessing Plant Microbiomes to Modulate Molecular Signaling and Regulatory Networks in Drought Stress Adaptation. International Journal of Molecular Sciences, 27(3), 1139. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijms27031139

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop