Next Article in Journal
Lactiplantibacillus plantarum as a Potential Adjuvant and Delivery System for the Development of SARS-CoV-2 Oral Vaccines
Next Article in Special Issue
Bacillus velezensis CE 100 Inhibits Root Rot Diseases (Phytophthora spp.) and Promotes Growth of Japanese Cypress (Chamaecyparis obtusa Endlicher) Seedlings
Previous Article in Journal
A Non-Destructive, Tuneable Method to Isolate Live Cells for High-Speed AFM Analysis
Previous Article in Special Issue
Microbial Diversity of Psychrotolerant Bacteria Isolated from Wild Flora of Andes Mountains and Patagonia of Chile towards the Selection of Plant Growth-Promoting Bacterial Consortia to Alleviate Cold Stress in Plants
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Emerging Tool to Manage Bacterial Rice Pathogens

by
Mohamad Syazwan Ngalimat
1,
Erneeza Mohd Hata
2,
Dzarifah Zulperi
2,
Siti Izera Ismail
2,
Mohd Razi Ismail
3,4,
Nur Ain Izzati Mohd Zainudin
5,
Noor Baity Saidi
6 and
Mohd Termizi Yusof
1,*
1
Department of Microbiology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
2
Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
3
Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Food Security, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
4
Department of Crop Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
5
Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
6
Department of Cell and Molecular Biology, Faculty of Biotechnology and Biomolecular Sciences, Universiti Putra Malaysia, Serdang 43400, Selangor, Malaysia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Microorganisms 2021, 9(4), 682; https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040682
Submission received: 6 January 2021 / Revised: 29 January 2021 / Accepted: 1 February 2021 / Published: 26 March 2021

Abstract

:
As a major food crop, rice (Oryza sativa) is produced and consumed by nearly 90% of the population in Asia with less than 9% produced outside Asia. Hence, reports on large scale grain losses were alarming and resulted in a heightened awareness on the importance of rice plants’ health and increased interest against phytopathogens in rice. To serve this interest, this review will provide a summary on bacterial rice pathogens, which can potentially be controlled by plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB). Additionally, this review highlights PGPB-mediated functional traits, including biocontrol of bacterial rice pathogens and enhancement of rice plant’s growth. Currently, a plethora of recent studies address the use of PGPB to combat bacterial rice pathogens in an attempt to replace existing methods of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that often lead to environmental pollutions. As a tool to combat bacterial rice pathogens, PGPB presented itself as a promising alternative in improving rice plants’ health and simultaneously controlling bacterial rice pathogens in vitro and in the field/greenhouse studies. PGPB, such as Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, Streptomyces, are now very well-known. Applications of PGPB as bioformulations are found to be effective in improving rice productivity and provide an eco-friendly alternative to agroecosystems.

1. Introduction

Rice (Oryza sativa) is a staple food in Asia and parts of African countries. Over 90% of the world’s rice is produced in the Asian region and consumed as the main food source. With an ever-increasing human population, it is challenging to ensure food security for the general population. To counter the demand, rice production needs to be increased to fulfill this need [1]. However, throughout the growing season, reduction in rice yields has been detected and are caused by a variety of phytopathogens including bacteria. Rice diseases caused by bacteria are the main constraint towards sustainable productivity of rice [2]. Up until now, extensive work has been carried out on the management of bacterial diseases of rice caused by bacterial species belonging to the genus Xanthomonas [3,4,5]. With an awareness to reduce chemical usage to decrease the proliferation of pathogenic microbes, biocontrol is a promising strategy to combat phytopathogens [6].
In plant rhizosphere, plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) are indigenous. PGPB display beneficial effects on their host plant and play a major role in the biocontrol of phytopathogens [7]. With rice, diverse types of bacterial genera, including Pseudomonas, Bacillus, Enterobacter, Alcaligenes, Arthrobacter, Azospirillum, Azotobacter, Burkholderia, Klebsiella, Rhizobium, and Serratia, have all been potentially considered as PGPB as characterized in vitro [8]. Characterization of PGPB is based on their ability to stimulate plant growth, which involves multiple mechanisms, including direct and indirect mechanisms [9]. Direct mechanisms involve nitrogen fixation, mineral (e.g., phosphorus and iron) solubilization, siderophore production, and phytohormone production (e.g., auxins, cytokinins, gibberellins, and ethylene). Meanwhile, indirect mechanisms are mainly due to the biocontrol activities of PGPB in responding to the biotic stress by producing antibiotics. In addition, PGPB also have a role in the management of abiotic stresses, such as salinity and drought [10]. Thus, to enhance rice productivity, as well as for biocontrol against phytopathogens, the usage of PGPB is needed.
Applications of PGPB on rice have shown notable successes. A plethora of PGPB from the genera Bacillus [11], Pseudomonas [12], Enterobacter [13], and Streptomyces [14] were reported to give positive effects on rice plant’s health and growth. Bacterial species, such as Pseudomonas fluorescens [15,16], and a bacterial consortium [17] have shown their applicability to enhance rice yields in a form of bioformulations. Studies indicated that PGPB can act as bioinoculants as they promote plant growth, health, and yield [18,19,20]. Currently, PGPB also have been found acting against bacterial rice pathogens [21,22,23]. Hence, PGPB inoculation is emerging as an effective method to combat bacterial rice pathogens for enhancing rice production through eco-friendly approaches. In this review, an overview of bacterial rice pathogens is described. We have discussed PGPB-mediated functional traits including biocontrol of bacterial rice pathogens and enhancement of rice plant’s growth. Future potential uses of PGPB in enhancing rice productivity in the form of bioformulations are also projected.

2. Bacterial Rice Pathogens

Rice diseases caused by bacteria are a major bottleneck towards sustainable productivity of rice, especially in Asia and parts of the African countries. In severe epidemics, reduction in rice has reached more than 60% and millions of hectares of rice are infected annually [24,25,26]. Bacterial pathogens, such as Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola, Burkholderia glumae, and Burkholderia gladioli, are spread rapidly and sporadically under favorable conditions and cause tremendous obstacles to rice production [27,28]. Bacterial pathogens are easily transmitted from infected plants that travel through the water and spread to the roots and leaves of neighboring plants. The spreading of bacterial pathogens can also be transmitted from contaminated or infected seeds to the emerging seedlings [29].
Bacterial pathogens infect the rice plant at all parts including the seed, foliar, leaf sheath, grain, culm, and root (Table 1). Numerous bacterial pathogens that are reported to cause diseases in rice belong to the genera Xanthomonas, Burkholderia, Pseudomonas, Pantoea, Erwinia, Acidovorax, Dickeya, and Enterobacter. Bacterial species belonging to the genus Xanthomonas, including X. oryzae pv. oryzae (the causal agent of Bacteria Leaf Blight) and X. oryzae pv. oryzicola (the causal agent of Bacterial Leaf Streak), are well-known bacterial diseases of rice. It is noteworthy that studies in recent years have indicated numerous bacterial species from the genus Burkholderia and Pantoea as the next major pathogens of rice [4,29,30].
With regard to bacterial pathogenicity, plant pathology and genomic studies have revealed the detection of virulence factors including degradative enzymes, extracellular polysaccharides, and components of quorum sensing signaling molecules, which are in-volved in the communication between the host and pathogen that contribute to rice dis-eases [31,32,33]. This conveys a sense of continuing excitement in the field of molecular plant pathology to control bacterial rice pathogens. To date, the main approaches to control bacterial rice pathogens include the production of disease-resistant rice varieties [34,35,36]; modification in cultural practices [37,38]; use of natural products or botanical extracts [39,40,41]; use of conventional and non-conventional chemicals [42,43]; coevolution analysis of the pathogen virulence and the host resistance genes [44,45]; transcriptomic analysis of pathogen along rice development [46,47]; improvement of diagnostic tools in the field for early detection of infectious diseases [48].
However, the effectiveness of these approaches is somehow inefficient due to the polymorphisms and chemical resistance developed in virulent strains [49]. Interestingly, biocontrol strategies by implementing PGPB could be a possible alternative in controlling rice pathogens, which involves the application of disease-suppressive bacteria to control pathogens and improve plant health.
Table 1. Bacterial rice pathogens and related diseases.
Table 1. Bacterial rice pathogens and related diseases.
DiseasesBacterial PathogensReferences
SeedlingSeedling blightBurkholderia plantarii[50]
Bacterial Brown Stripe of Rice (BBSR)Pseudomonas syringae pv. panici[51]
Acidovorax avenae subsp. avenae[52]
FoliarBacterial Blight (BB) or
Bacteria Leaf Blight (BLB)
Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae[53]
Pantoea ananatis[54]
Pantoea stewartii subsp. indologenes[55]
Pantoea stewartii[54]
Pantoea agglomerans[56]
Bacterial Leaf Streak (BLS)Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola[57]
Halo blightPseudomonas syringae pv. oryzae[58]
Leaf sheath and grain rotSheath brown rotPseudomonas fuscovaginae[59]
Sheath rotPseudomonas syringae pv. syringae[60]
Bacterial Panicle Blight (BPB)Burkholderia glumae or Burkholderia gladioli[29]
Bacterial palea browningErwinia herbicola[61]
Pantoea ananatis[62]
Enterobacter cloacae[63]
Culm and rootBacterial foot rotErwinia chrysanthemi[64]
Dickeya zeae[65]

3. An Overview of In Vitro Characterizations of Promising PGPB

Rhizosphere is the soil surrounding plant roots that are rich in nutrients and a potent habitat for microbes that thrive on root exudates known as rhizodeposits [66]. Rhizodeposits comprise various compounds that aid the lubrication and nutrient acquisition of plants [67]. Rhizodeposits act as chemo attractants that welcome large and diverse microbial communities living in the rhizosphere to multiply the roots or adjacent rhizospheric soil [68]. PGPB are a specific category of microbes that are beneficial to the plant or are involved in some positive plant–microbe interactions [69]. The mechanisms of plant–microbe interactions for a successful PGPB to enhance plant growth have been reviewed previously [70,71,72]. As suggested by Kloepper, successful PGPB are characterized by three inherent distinctiveness: (i) must be proficient to colonize the root surface; (ii) must survive, multiply, and compete with other microbiota, at least for the time needed to express their plant growth-promoting activities; (iii) must promote plant growth [73]. Other than being able to colonize plant roots and promote plant growth, PGPB also simultaneously act as biocontrol agents, biofertilizers, phytostimulators, rhizoremediators, and biopesticides [74]. It is noteworthy to highlight that the usage of PGPB as biological agents offered various promising advantages, including enhancement in crop yield and a decrease in disease occurrence [75].
PGPB’s ability as a biocontrol agent is linked to how they improve plant growth and suppress phytopathogens either by direct and or by indirect mechanisms (Figure 1). The characterization of plant growth-promoting mechanisms of PGPB can be determined in vitro (Table 2). Direct mechanisms include the balance of plant growth regulators. PGPB release plant growth regulators that are integrated into the plant and act as a sink of plant-released hormones. Subsequently, this induces the plant’s metabolism, thus leading to an improvement in the plant’s adaptive capacity. In this mechanism, PGPB facilitate resource acquisition such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and essential minerals through biological nitrogen fixation, phosphate solubilization, and iron sequestration by siderophores. PGPB also modulate phytohormone levels such as indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), cytokinins, and gibberellins to promote plant growth [76]. IAA is an auxin produced by PGPB that plays a role in stimulating both rapid (e.g., cell elongation) and long-term (e.g., cell division and differentiation) responses in plants [77]. Similar to IAA, cytokinins influence plant physiological and developmental processes. Plant responses to exogenous applications of cytokinins resulted in enhanced cell division and root development and formation [78]. Gibberellins are important phytohormones that influence the developmental processes in higher plants including, seed germination, stem elongation, flowering, and fruit setting [79].
Indirect mechanisms require the involvement of the plants’ defensive metabolic processes that respond to the signal sent from the PGPB. The mechanisms include: (i) induced systemic resistance (ISR) to plant phytopathogens (biotic stress), and (ii) protection against environmental stress (abiotic stress) [97]. In this mechanism, PGPB mediate the production of antimicrobial metabolites under biotic stress by responding to the rhizospheric competition for nutrients and niche exclusion. PGPB produced antimicrobial metabolites such as hydrogen cyanide (HCN), cyclic lipopeptides (CLP), 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol (DAPG), pyrrolnitrin, pyoluteorin, and phenazines, which are used to inhibit the growth of competing microbes [98]. Interaction of PGPB with plant roots enhances plant resistance against some microbes including pathogenic bacteria, fungi, and viruses. This phenomenon is termed as induced systemic resistance (ISR). Many individual bacterial components, such as siderophores, CLP, DAPG, and volatile organic compounds (VOCs), including acetoin and 2,3-butanediol, act as an elicitor of ISR [99]. Moreover, ISR involves ethylene (a phytohormone that governs plant growth and development) signaling that stimulates the host plant’s defense responses against a variety of phytopathogens [100]. Interestingly, PGPB that produce 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylate (ACC) deaminase enzyme are able to facilitate plant growth and development by lowering ethylene levels through degradation of ACC to ammonia and α-ketobutyrate. Therefore, the PGPB containing ACC deaminase have the potential to reduce abiotic stress by decreasing ethylene levels [101].

4. The PGPB as Biocontrol Agent

Biocontrol is a promising strategy to control phytopathogens, which could be an alternative for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. The implementation of PGPB as a biocontrol agent to inhibit the growth of phytopathogens has become widespread due to environmental concerns. This strategy has received great attention as it provides a safe, inexpensive, long-lasting, and environmentally friendly alternative [102]. Bacteria from the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, and Streptomyces were all extensively studied as biocontrol agents as soon as their antagonistic activity against rice pathogens was recognized. Apart from these four groups, other genera are highlighted in the section below.

4.1. Bacillus spp.

Bacillus spp. are Gram-positive bacteria belonging to the phyla Firmicutes, class Bacilli, and family Bacillaceae. It can be characterized as rod-shaped and endospore-forming bacteria. The ability to produce endospores when facing harsh conditions enabled this bacterial species to survive in various habitats including animal feces [103], bee products [104], soil [105], food [106], and aquatic environments [107]. Bacillus spp. as PGPB have been proven to confer numerous advantages in the agricultural sector [108]. There are three main contributions of Bacillus spp. in rice: (i) increase yield; (ii) improve tolerance to abiotic stresses; (iii) decrease in disease occurrence.
The colonization of Bacillus spp. on crop roots caused an increase in crop yields [75]. Evidently, rice root associated with Bacillus was found to improve growth, yield, and zinc (Zn) translocation of Basmati rice. Basmati-385 and Super Basmati rice yields were improved by more than 22% and 18%, respectively, upon inoculation with Zn-solubilizing strains that were identified as Bacillus spp. by 16S rRNA gene analysis [109]. Growth and yield were also found to be improved upon a new Egyptian rice line, GZ9461-4-2-3-1, inoculated with a consortium of PGPB containing Bacillus subtilis, Pseudomonas fluorescens, and Azospirillum brasilens. The integration of inorganic fertilizers with a consortium of PGPB positively affected rice yields and contributed to reducing chemical nitrogen fertilizers by 25% [110]. Moreover, nursery application of biological fertilizers containing Bacillus pumilus strain TUAT-1 and N fertilizer reportedly led to higher tiller numbers of rice at the maximum tillering stage [111].
Abiotic stresses, such as salinity and drought, pose major threats to rice growth and yield. Interestingly, Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strain NBRI-SN13 isolated from the alkaline soil of Banthara, Lucknow, was found to possess PGPB activities and improve stress tolerance in rice [112,113]. Tiwari et al. reported that B. amyloliquefaciens strain NBRI-SN13 positively modulated stress-responsive gene expressions, such as dehydrin (DHN) and late embryogenesis abundant (LEA), under various abiotic stresses (salt and heat) and phytohormone (abscisic acid) treatments [10]. The results suggested that PGPB play multifaceted roles in crosstalk among stresses and phytohormones in rice especially in osmolyte biosynthesis and subsequently osmotic adjustment. Recently, inoculation of salt-tolerant PGPB, namely, Bacillus tequilensis strain UPMRB9 and Bacillus aryabhattai strain UPMRE6 on rice plants were shown to have beneficial effects on photosynthesis, transpiration, and stomatal conductance [114]. Shultana et al. demonstrated that the inoculation of B. tequilensis strain UPMRB9 on the MR297 rice variety improved total chlorophyll content by 28% and reduced electrolyte leakage by 92% [115]. Increments of relative water content and reduction in the Na/K ratio were also found upon inoculation of B. tequilensis strain UPMRB9 and B. aryabhattai strain UPMRE6 on rice plants. The results suggested a synergistic effect between PGPB and rice plants on the mechanisms of the plant’s salt tolerance, suggesting the application of PGPB for salinity mitigation practice for coastal rice cultivation. Moreover, the potential application of Bacillus to mitigate drought stress in rice has also been demonstrated [116]. Inoculation of rice with drought-tolerant Bacillus altitudinis strain FD48 found an increased relative water content, chlorophyll stability index, and membrane stability index in rice.
In plant disease management, Bacillus controls the proliferation of phytopathogens by suppressing plant immunity [117,118]. Suppression of plant immunity by PGPB, referred to as ISR, is one of the important mechanisms to secure the plant against phytopathogens. ISR is defined by the systemic protection of plants by the enhancement of the plant’s defensive capacity against various phytopathogens, which is acquired after appropriate inducing by PGPB [100]. The mechanisms by which PGPB triggered ISR are poorly understood. It is believed that the ISR is triggered by inducing agents (elicitors of ISR) such as antimicrobial metabolites produced by PGPB. Once ISR is triggered, further activation of plant antioxidant enzymes, such as phenylalanine ammonia lyase (PAL), peroxidase (PO), polyphenol oxidase (PPO), chitinase, and β-1,3-glucanase, will take place. This will help the plants to mitigate the reactive oxygen species (ROS) level which is a source of oxidative stress during phytopathogens infection [117,119]. It is worth mentioning that the Bacillus can inhibit proliferation of phytopathogens as well as enhance plant immunity directly (by producing antimicrobial metabolites) and indirectly (by producing antioxidant enzymes). As confirmed through genomic analysis, the Bacillus genome is composed of antimicrobial metabolite gene clusters (e.g., surfactin and fengycin) and gene-encoding proteins (e.g., PO, PPO, chitinase, and β-1,3-glucanase) that function to suppress plant immunity [117,120]. The plant immune response may be triggered through specific bacterial elicitors produced by Bacillus. Further studies should be conducted on the Bacillus antimicrobial compounds and antioxidant enzymes beyond in silico genome analysis to understand its contribution in mediated rice plant ISR.
Bacillus spp. are known to activate ISR. This has been verified in vitro that rice seeds treated with Bacillus spp. showed an elevation of ISR in rice against X. oryzae pv. oryzae [121]. Bacillus-treated seeds exhibited an increased synthesis of defense-related enzymes including PAL, PO, and PPO. On another related study, the induction of systemic resistance against a fungal pathogen, namely, Rhizoctonia solani (the causal agent of Sheath Blight) was detected through an increased level of PAL and PO in rice treated with B. subtilis [122]. The treatment of B. subtilis on rice leaves under greenhouse conditions triggered the accumulation of pathogenesis-related proteins (thaumatin and β-1-3-glucanases) that play important roles for the induction of resistance in rice plant.
It is well known that the activity of Bacillus spp. as PGPB is linked to their ability to suppress phytopathogens by secretion of antimicrobial metabolites [123]. The secretion of antimicrobial metabolites including surfactins, difficidin, and bacilysin from Bacillus spp. trigger the pathways of ISR, which contributes to the suppressive effect of plant immunity [124,125]. Antimicrobial metabolites were determined to act as elicitors of plant immunity and enhance resistance towards further pathogenesis in plants [126]. Sarwar et al. found that purified surfactins from Bacillus strains, NH-100 and NH-217, were effective against rice bakanae disease [125]. In 2020, C15surfactin A produced by Bacillus velezensis strain HN-2 displayed antibacterial activities against X. oryzae pv. oryzae and effectively inhibited its infection on rice [119]. It is worth mentioning that the suppression by purified surfactins from B. amyloliquefaciens in bean plants was determined to enhance the plant’s ISR against a fungal pathogen, Botrytis cinerea, infection [127]. Similarly, in tobacco, surfactins were also found to induce early plant-defense mechanisms [128]. Furthermore, in vitro assays demonstrated the ability of difficidin and bacilysin from B. velezensis strain FZB42 (previously B. amyloliquefaciens strain FZB42) to suppress rice diseases caused by Xanthomonas [129]. The results found that difficidin and bacilysin caused downregulated expression of genes involved in Xanthomonas virulence, cell division, protein synthesis, and cell wall synthesis.

4.2. Pseudomonas spp.

Pseudomonas spp. are Gram-negative, polar-flagellated, and rod-shaped bacteria. This bacterial genus belongs to the phyla Proteobacteria, class Gammaproteobacteria, and family Pseudomonadaceae. Species of Pseudomonas and their products have been used in large-scale for biotechnological applications [130]. Pseudomonas spp. are ubiquitous in agricultural soils and have many plant growth-promoting traits. Moreover, Pseudomonas is a notable bacterial genus because some species are known as clinically important opportunistic human pathogen, plant pathogen, and biocontrol agent. Notable examples include the human pathogen, Pseudomonas aeruginosa [131], the plant pathogen, Pseudomonas syringae [132], and the non-pathogenic biocontrol agents, Pseudomonas putida and Pseudomonas fluorescens [133,134].
P. aeruginosa strains have been intensively studied as an opportunistic human pathogen, especially in an immunocompromised host (a host with a weakened immune system). Interestingly in biocontrol applications, the use of P. aeruginosa strains as PGPB has been demonstrated. Strains of P. aeruginosa have been reported to be used in seed treatments of rice [135]. All P. aeruginosa strains showed plant growth-promoting activity and ISR in rice. Pathogenesis-related peroxidases that are involved in ISR in rice plants were detected in all the P. aeruginosa strains and showed antifungal activity against phytopathogenic fungi (R. solani, Pyricularia oryzae, and Helminthosporium oryzae). In 2017, P. aeruginosa strain BRp3 (identified using 16S rRNA gene sequencing) isolated from rice rhizosphere was found able to solubilize phosphorus (97 μg/mL) and produced IAA (30 μg/mL) and siderophores (15 mg/L) in vitro [136]. MS analysis revealed the production of siderophores (1-hydroxy-phenazine, pyochellin, and pyocyanin), 4-hydroxy-2-alkylquinolines, rhamnolipids, 2,3,4-trihydroxy-2-alkylquinolines, and 1,2,3,4-tetrahydroxy-2-alkylquinolines in crude extracts of strain BRp3. The results suggested that the secondary metabolites produced by strain BRp3 contribute to its antibacterial activity against X. oryzae pv. oryzae and its potential to promote the growth and yield of Super Basmati rice.
Strains of P. syringae are noted for their diverse and host-specific interactions with a plethora of plant species including rice [51,137]. As a plant pathogen, P. syringae colonizes plant tissues by entering plant leaves through the stomata, multiplies in the intercellular space (apoplast), and eventually produces necrotic lesions that are often surrounded by chlorotic halos [138]. However, in 2019, P. syringae pv. syringae strain 260-02 was found exhibiting non-pathogenic behavior [139]. Strain 260-02 was reported to promote plant growth and exerted biocontrol of P. syringae pv. tomato strain DC3000, against the B. cinerea fungus and the Cymbidium ringspot virus. Controversially, the pathogenic status of P. syringae has been rising. Considering the genome plasticity of strain 260-02 that could switch to pathogenic behavior through horizontal gene transfer mechanisms, the introduction of this strain into an ecosystem as a biocontrol agent is extremely dangerous.
The implementation of various species of Psuedomonas as PGPB on rice plant is well reported [140,141]. For instance, PGPB activities of P. putida strain RRF3 have been demonstrated through transcriptomic analysis of rice plant roots [133]. Overall, the results suggested that strain RRF3 immunizes rice plants by re-organizing the root transcriptome to stimulate plant defense responses, and simultaneously protects itself (being a foreign organism) from the primed plants by altering the rhizodeposits. In another related study, the application of a microbial consortium containing P. putida (bacterium) and Chlorella vulgaris (algae) has proven to ameliorate arsenic toxicity in rice [142]. The positive responses were attributable to a significant decline in arsenic accumulation in root (94 mg kg−1 dw) and shoot (51 mg kg−1 dw) in a consortium of inoculated seedlings as compared to arsenic exposed plants (156 and 98 mg kg−1 dw, respectively). These results suggested that this consortium might alleviate arsenic stress and improve growth of rice seedlings along with a reduction in arsenic levels. Moreover, in vitro characterization of plant growth-promoting activities of Pseudomonas pseudoalcaligenes showed that this bacterium has a higher phosphate solubilization and productions of ACC deaminase, siderophores, IAA, and gibberellins [143]. In addition, P. pseudoalcaligenes suppressed Magnaporthe grisea (the causal agent of Rice Blast Fungus) infection by producing lytic enzymes, namely, chitinase and β-1, 3-glucanase. In greenhouse studies, inoculation of P. pseudoalcaligenes resulted in the improvement of dry weight, plant height, and root length of rice plants compared to inoculation of B. pumilus.
PGPB strains belonging to fluorescent Pseudomonas such as P. fluorescens are commonly isolated from rice rhizosphere [134]. For instance, 10 strains of P. fluorescens isolated from rice rhizosphere soils in Karnataka, India possesses antibacterial activities against X. oryzae pv. oryzae [144]. All 10 strains were positive for plant growth-promoting activities including phosphate solubilization and productions of siderophores, HCN, IAA, chitinase, β-1, 3-glucanase, cellulase, and salicylic acid. One P. fluorescens strain, namely, Pf9, was found to effectively control the causal agent of Bacteria Leaf Blight (BLB) disease. In untreated controls, BLB disease incidence was 80% and this was reduced to 20% in plants raised from strain Pf9 treated seeds. Moreover, biological control of X. oryzae pv. oryzae by plant-associated P. fluorescens producing antimicrobial compound, DAPG, also has been reported [145]. DAPG was found able to inhibit the growth of X. oryzae pv. oryzae in laboratory assays and reduced BLB disease in net-house (59%) and field (64%) experiments. In 2016, the application of P. fluorescens (PGPRPf) in Giza 179 rice cultivar has been tested in the nursery and field [110]. Inoculated rice in the nursery by PGPRPf exhibited an increase in seed germination, seedling vigor, and yield. In addition, the application of inorganic nitrogen in combination with PGPRPf (46 kg nitrogen fed−1 + PGPRPf soil application and PGPRPf foliar spray bacterial application) in the field improved rice yields.

4.3. Enterobacter spp.

Enterobacter spp. are Gram-negative, rod-shaped, and non-spore-forming bacteria belonging to the phyla Proteobacteria, class Gammaproteobacteria, and family Enterobacteriaceae. The potential of Enterobacter to contribute to the development of sustainable agricultural systems as PGPB has been reviewed previously [146]. However, the mechanisms of PGPB-mediated enhancement of plant growth and yield of many crops are not yet fully understood. It is suggested that Enterobacter functions in three different ways: (i) synthesizing particular compounds for the plants, (ii) facilitating the uptake of certain nutrients from the soil, and (iii) lessening or preventing the plants from diseases. These can be characterized by the determination of antagonistic and plant growth-promoting activities [147].
Enterobacter cloacae strain B8 [148] and strain B8x [149] have been proven to be effective in improving rice growth and showed antagonistic activity towards X. oryzae pv. oryzae. In 2020, two bacterial strains (BSB1 and BCB11) isolated from the field showed antagonistic activities towards B. glumae were identified belonging to the genus Enterobacter [21]. The strains showed high similarity (99%) to Enterobacter tabaci as analyzed based on 16S rRNA gene sequences and phylogenetic analyses. Strain BSB1 proved to be the best inorganic phosphorus solubilizer with a solubilization index (SI) of 4.5. Noteworthy, the EtOAc extract of strain BCB11 was found to inhibit the growth of B. glumae strains by 85–95%. Metabolomic analysis of EtOAc extract based on GC–MS showed that the main compound present is 3-phenylpropanoic acid (46.7%). This compound showed antibacterial activity with a minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) of 1000 mg/L against five strains of B. glumae. The results suggested that Enterobacter is a promising strain as a PGPB and as a source of compound that could inhibit the growth of B. glumae.
Up until now, multi-heavy-metal-resistant strains of Enterobacter have exhibited positive effects on rice plant growth. In 2018, multi-heavy-metal-resistant-PGPB isolated from metal-contaminated rice rhizosphere were identified as Enterobacter sp. strain K2 using phenotypic characterization and MALDI-TOF MS [150]. Strain K2 was found able to resist a group of heavy metals/metalloids (cadmium, lead, arsenic, nickel, and mercury) and possesses plant growth-promoting activities, such as phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, IAA production, and ACC deaminase production. In vitro growth enhancement of a rice cultivar by strain K2 was investigated using cadmium stress and an almost 40% increase in the germination percentage was observed. Other related studies also characterized cadmium-resistance Enterobacter that conferred cadmium-tolerance in rice seedlings and are potentially to be applied as PGPB in contaminated fields. Mitra et al. reported that Enterobacter sp. strain S2 showed multiple heavy metal resistance on cadmium (3500 µg/mL), lead (2500 µg/mL), and arsenic (1050 µg/mL) [13]. Strain S2 also possesses plant growth-promoting activities based on its ability to solubilize phosphate (73.56 ppm), fix nitrogen (4.4 µg of nitrogen fixed/h/mg protein), produce ACC deaminase (236.11 ng α-keto-butyrate/mg protein/h), and IAA (726 µg/mL). Inoculation of strain S2 with rice seedlings significantly enhanced various morphological and biochemical characters of seedling growth compared to un-inoculated seedlings under cadmium stress.
Moreover, a multi-heavy-metal-resistant-PGPB strain identified as Enterobacter aerogenes strain K6 (based on 16S rDNA gene sequence, MALDI-TOF MS, and FAME analyses) was isolated from rice rhizosphere contaminated with a variety of heavy metals/metalloid near an industrial area [151]. Strain K6 exhibited a high degree of resistance to cadmium (4000 μg/mL), lead (3800 μg/mL), and arsenic (1500 μg/mL). Moreover, strain K6 showed several important plant growth-promoting activities, such as phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, IAA production, and ACC deaminase activity under high cadmium stress (up to 3000 μg/mL). Strain K6 was manifested to improve growth of rice seedlings under cadmium stress by lowering oxidative stress (through antioxidants), ethylene stress, and cadmium uptake in seedlings. Furthermore, Enterobacter has also been reported to be resistant to chromium (Cr(VI)) and possesses plant growth-promoting activities. For example, Enterobacter cloacae strain CTWI-06 was shown to be resistant to 3500 ppm of Cr(VI) [152]. Under optimized conditions, strain CTWI-06 reduced 94% of Cr(VI) within 92 h and reduction was proven by FTIR and XRD analyses. Plant growth-promoting activities such as phosphate solubilization, nitrogen fixation, IAA production, antifungal activities (R. solani ITCC 2060 and Phytium debaryanum ITCC 5488) were recorded, as well as improved productivity of Mahalakshmi rice in pot culture. The results suggested the potential application of Cr(VI)-reducing strain, CTWI-06, as a bioremediation agent of Cr(VI) in chromium-contaminated soil.
Current explorations of Enterobacter spp. are not only focusing on the determination of heavy-metal-resistant-PGPB. Several studies also reported the potential of Enterobacter to enhance tolerance of rice plants to salt in soil. For instance, inoculation of Enterobacter sp. strain SE-5 resulted in an increment of mature rice plant biomass under salt and cadmium stresses [153]. Strain SE-5 is proposed as an inheritable endophyte due to its ability to be transmitted into rhizosphere, roots, stems, and leaves of mature rice plants as analyzed using green fluorescent protein (gfp). In addition, strain SE-5 was found to survive in different soil layers for more than 90 days. Overall, the results suggested that strain SE-5 is potentially proliferating-transmitting in mature rice plants and rhizosphere soil during plant growth. Moreover, salt-tolerant PGPB isolated from rice fields, namely, Enterobacter sp. strain P23, were also shown to promote rice seedling growth under salt stress [154]. This effect was correlated with a decrease in plant ethylene production. Reduction in plant ethylene production after inoculation of strain P23 was linked to the bacterial ACC deaminase activity. Strain P23 utilized ACC as a nitrogen source, thus preventing plant ethylene production. In another related study, Enterobacter was also found exhibiting ACC deaminase activity [155]. Inoculation with the wild (Enterobacter sp. E5) and engineered (Enterobacter sp. E5P; overexpressed with ACC deaminase gene) strains promoted the growth of sprouts. The promoting effects were more profound with engineered strain than with wild strain. The engineered strain improved saline resistance of sprouts under salt concentrations from 10 to 25 gL−1 and promoted longer roots and shoots than the wild strain. These results suggested that bacterial ACC deaminases play a role in plant-produced ACC degradation and thus inhibit plant ethylene production.

4.4. Streptomyces spp.

Streptomyces spp. are the most attractive bacterial genus within the scientific community due to their capability to produce various bioactive compounds, which are consequently invaluable in the medical and agricultural fields. Streptomyces spp. received a worldwide attention due to their potential as producers of extracellular enzymes [156] and as important sources of secondary metabolites such as antibiotics [157]. Streptomyces spp. are complex filamentous Gram-positive bacteria belonging to the phyla Actinobacteria, class Actinomycetes, and family Streptomycetaceae.
Bacteria from the genus Streptomyces are complexly reproduced. Unlike most bacteria that divide by binary fission, Streptomyces spp. grow as a mycelium of branching hyphal filaments and reproduce in a mold-like manner by sending up aerial branches that turn into chains of spores [158]. The complexity of Streptomyces spp. can also be observed through their large genome size (more than 8 Mbp with a high G + C content), which is often associated with their ability to survive in various environments [159,160]. Interestingly, genome analysis via genome-mining approach has allowed the prediction of biosynthetic gene clusters related to the plant growth-promoting activities of Streptomyces strains as a biocontrol agent [161].
Streptomyces spp. were reported to aid in plant development as PGPB [162,163,164,165]. The characterization of Streptomyces spp. as PGPB has provided information on their beneficial traits related to the antagonistic and plant growth-promoting activities [166]. Bacteria belonging to the Streptomyces clade isolated from the Colombian Caribbean Sea showed antibacterial activities against B. glumae, B. gladioli, and B. plantarii [167]. Moreover, Streptomyces spp. have also been reported to exhibit antagonistic activities against X. oryzae [168,169], X. oryzae pv. oryzicola [170,171], X. oryzae pv. oryzae [172,173,174], B. glumae and B. gladioli [175], P. fuscovaginae [166], E. chrysanthemi [176], and D. zeae [177].
Genomically, the key pathways relating to plant growth-promoting activity, such as siderophores, IAA, HCN, chitinase, and cellulase, have also been decoded in the genome of Streptomyces strains [161]. It is noteworthy that Streptomyces spp. are reportedly able to produce antimicrobial metabolites, including blasticidin-S [178], kasugamycin [179], polyoxins [180], and oligomycins [181], that were observed to be active against rice pathogens. The secretion of antimicrobial metabolite from PGPB was suggested to trigger the pathways of ISR in plants which contribute to the suppressive effects of plant immunity [182] and enhance resistance towards further pathogenesis in plants [126]. Other than antimicrobial metabolites, Streptomyces spp. also produce a large number of other bioactive metabolites, including VOCs that stimulate plant growth both directly and indirectly [183,184]. Much more focus is still needed to understand the function of antimicrobial metabolites and VOCs from Streptomyces spp., particularly with regard to the antagonistic activity against bacterial rice pathogens as well as the ISR of rice plants.

4.5. Other Bacterial Genus

Bacterial genera belonging to the phyla Proteobacteria, including Acidovorax [185], Rhizobium [141,186], Burkholderia [187,188], Serratia [189], Azotobacter [190], Klebsiella [188], Alcaligenes [191], Ochrobactrum [191], Pseudacidovorax [192], Azospirillum [192,193], and Herbaspirillum [192,193], have all been proven to be effective in improving rice growth and yield. Other bacterial genera belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria (Acinetobacter and Pantoea) and Firmicutes (Staphylococcus, Oceanobacillus, and Paenibacillus) have been reported as PGPB and showed antagonistic effects against X. oryzae pv. oryzae [194]. Moreover, PGPB with antifungal and antibacterial activities were detected from endo- and rhizospheric bacteria isolated from Basmati rice [195]. Bacterial species belonging to the phylum Proteobacteria (Stenotrophomonas maltophila UKA-72 and Rhizobium radiobacter UKA-24) and Firmicutes (B. pumilus UKA-27) exhibited antimicrobial activities against fungal (Sclerotium rolfsii, F. oxysporum, and Rhizoctonia bataticola) and bacterial (Xanthomonas compestris pv. phaseoli M5, X. oryzae, Xanthomonas compestris pv. phaseoli CP-1-1, and Ralstonia solanacerum) pathogens.
So far, omics technologies have led to the exploration of crop rhizobiome through the metagenomics approach to understanding plant–microbe interactions [196]. Such interactions lead to the selection of plant beneficial microbes, such as PGPB. Interestingly, the population of bacteria in rice rhizosphere was explored metagenomically. In 2020, the population of bacteria in the rhizosphere and phyllosphere of Basmati rice was reported [197]. Bacterial population associated with the rice rhizosphere from three different rice growing areas (Faisalabad, Gujranwala, and Sheikhupura) of Punjab, Pakistan, were compared. Data analyses revealed that Proteobacteria was the dominant phylum at all three areas. In the phyllosphere, Proteobacteria (79.6%) was detected as the dominant phylum followed by Firmicutes (9.8%), Bacteroidetes (8.6%), Chloroflexi (4.3%), and Actinobacteria (0.9%). In other related studies, the 16S rRNA gene amplicon-based metagenomic signatures of the rhizobiome community in rice fields in India have also been evaluated [198]. The results demonstrated that the Proteobacteria (25.69%) is the most abundant bacterial phylum associated with the rice rhizosphere followed by Firmicutes (20.82%), Actinobacteria (16.68%), and Acidobacteria (13.28%). In particular, much more focus is still needed to understand the biological roles of microbes in rice rhizosphere. Therefore, it is necessary to conduct further studies to determine in vivo metabolic activities and the physiological characteristics of rice rhizosphere microbial community. Understanding such attributes will help to shed light on the functionality as well as biological roles of microbes in rice rhizosphere not only for improved plant health as biofertilizers but as biological agents to combat phytopathogens.

5. Bioformulations of PGPB in Rice: Applications, Challenges, and Future Prospects

5.1. Applications on Bioformulations

Bioformulations are defined as any biologically active substances derived from microbial biomass or products containing microbes and microbial metabolites that are used in plant growth promotion, nutrient acquisition, and disease control in an eco-friendly manner [199]. The application of PGPB in bioformulation development has been reviewed previously [164,200,201]. In the development of bioformulations, three potent components are needed, which include: (i) active ingredient, (ii) carrier material, and (ii) additive [202]. The active ingredient is typically a viable organism (live microbes or spores that are able to survive during storage), while carrier material is an inert substance that supports the active ingredient (cells). The carrier material assures that cells are able to easily proliferate in or around the plant and to provide better chances of enhancing biocontrol and plant growth-promoting activities. Carrier materials such as talc, charcoal, wheat bran, rice husk, saw dust, fuller’s earth, and sugarcane bagasse were found to increase the shelf life of the active ingredient [203,204]. Additives such as gum arabic, trehalose, glycerol, alginate, and carboxymethyl cellulose were reported protect the cells and provide a longer shelf life along with providing tolerance from harsh environmental conditions, while improving physical, chemical, and nutritional properties of bioformulations [205].
Many reports suggested that bioformulations are easy to deliver, able to enhance plant growth and stress resistance, and able to increase plant biomass and yield. Additionally, any bioformulation with an increased shelf life with simultaneous actions of biocontrol and biofertilizer activities under field conditions could open the way for technological exploitation and marketing [206,207]. With rice, PGPB bioformulations have been applied to combat bacterial as well as fungal rice pathogens [17,208,209,210,211]. In 2017, P. aeruginosa strain BRp3 has been suggested as a bio-inoculant for Super Basmati rice and showed antagonistic activities against X. oryzae pv. oryzae [136]. The inoculation of strain BRp3 supplemented with 80% of the recommended doses of N and P (140–80 kg NP acre−1) significantly enhanced grain and straw yield with an increase of 51% and 55%, respectively. Colonization studies under field conditions using viable count detected the colonization of strain BRp3 on rice roots and shoots up to 60 days, suggesting its application as rhizobacteria-inoculants.
In another related study, the efficacy of PGPB, P. fluorescens, as a bioformulation in rice has been reported. Seed treatment with bioformulation of P. fluorescens strain RRb 11 increased the plant growth-promoting parameters of Pusa Basmati 1 rice [15]. The talc-based bioformulation not only reduces disease intensity (caused by X. oryzae pv. oryzae) but enhances germination, increases height, dry matter, and yield. In addition, Jambhulkar and Sharma showed antagonistic potential of P. fluorescens strain RRb-11 against X. oryzae pv. oryzae [16]. The results stated that the maximum shelf life of strain RRb-11 was recorded up to 150 days after storage in talc-based bioformulations. In field studies, the bioformulation was applied as seed treatment, seedling root dip, and soil application in combination. Overall, the reduction in BLB disease against control was recorded by 92.3% in the year 2009 and 88.5% in the year 2010. The treatment also produced a maximum yield (61%) greater than control. The bioformulation of PGPB, P. fluorescens strain SP007s, has also been applied in Thailand [212]. The application of strain SP007s as a bioformulation termed as ISR-P/K via seed treatment, broadcasting, and foliar spray significantly achieved the best results in yield improvement at 52.1% and a reduction in bacterial (X. oryzae pv. oryzae) and fungal (Pyricularia grisea, H. oryzae, Cercospora oryzae, R. solani, Curvularia lunata, Fusarium semitectum, Alternaria padwickii, and Sarocladium oryzae) pathogens.
The use of PGPB in the form of bioformulation is an eco-friendly and inexpensive alternative to chemical fertilizers and pesticides [213,214]. It is worth mentioning that several microbe-based products or microbial consortia to improve rice yields are commercially available to farmers worldwide [215,216,217,218]. These include Bio-N (Nutri-Tech Solutions, Yandina, Queensland, Australia) containing Azospirillum spp.; BioGroe® (Nguyen Thanh Hien in Hanoi University, Hanoi, Vietnam) containing P. fluorescens, B. subtilis, B. amyloliquefaciens, and Candida tropicalis; Dimargon® (Bernardo Dibut Alvarez in INIFAT, Havana, Cuba) containing Azotobacter chroococcum; EMAS (Didiek Hadjar Goenadi in IRIBB, Bogor, Indonesia) containing Azospirillum lipoferum, Acinetobacter beijerinckii, Aeromonas punctate, and Aspergillus niger; BioPower (NIBGE, Faisalabad, Pakistan) containing multiple strains of nitrogen-fixing bacteria.

5.2. Challenges and Future Prospects

To enhance yield and protect crops against pests and pathogens, the use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides have been crucial in ensuring food security to feed the ever-increasing human population [219]. Repeated use of chemical fertilizers and pesticides that are rich in nitrogen, phosphorous, and potassium lead to soil, air, and groundwater pollution [220]. Interestingly, the use of PGPB is a potent and upcoming method to ensure sustainable agriculture without depleting natural resources [221,222]. The introduction of successful PGPB to soil ecosystems improves soil’s physical (e.g., reducing sodicity and bulk density, improving water infiltration rate, and increasing porosity and aeration) and chemical (e.g., reducing acidity) properties [223]. However, before PGPB can be applied to the environment, there are several safety standards and qualities that should be fulfilled [224,225]. A potential PGPB should: be identified as a taxonomical unit univocally, be effective against target phytopathogens, not show clinical or animal toxicity, and not persist in the agro-environment. Moreover, PGPB should not transfer its genetic material to other closely related microbes to avoid the risk of antibiotic resistance development [226]. With these, the antagonistic potential and behavioral features of a potential PGPB must be thoroughly characterized to permit its registration as a biocontrol agent and approval for use in plant protection.
The introduction of the research results for industrial exploitation is not necessarily easy. Several PGPB bioformulations published worldwide demonstrated outstanding biocontrol activities in vitro [11,227]. Often a lack of field results failed to support the applicability of PGPB in commercial fields/greenhouses studies. This limitation hinders the commercial development of successful PGPB bioformulations. Furthermore, the biocontrol activity of PGPB is also hindered due to the fact that the production of antimicrobial metabolites by PGPB is strictly dependent on the PGPB’s culturing substrate as well as abiotic and biotic stresses around them [228,229]. Additionally, the potential of PGPB to control newly emerging bacterial rice pathogens remains obscure. Further extensive studies on plant–microbe interaction mechanisms (beyond the rhizosphere), especially on biocontrol and plant growth-promoting actions, are still not sufficiently explained. Advances of the omics technologies through next-generation sequencing (NGS) and molecular biology studies such as metagenomics, metabolomics, proteomics, and culturomics will be necessary to understand the fate of PGPB in mediated plant–microbe interactions [230,231]. Shedding light on the symbiotic interaction of PGPB with rice might lead to the development of highly effective and efficient bioformulation across different soil types and environmental conditions. Overall, much more focus is still needed to fulfill the industrial demands for the production of effective bioformulations with one or more active ingredients, using different carrier materials and additives, and with various methods/treatments of field inoculations.

6. Conclusions

A plethora of studies have addressed the ability of PGPB to promote plant growth on rice plants and its biocontrol activity against bacterial rice pathogens. As this review has made clear, bacterial rice pathogens can be caused by a variety of bacterial genus, including Xanthomonas, Burkholderia, and Pantoea. Interestingly, PGPB could be a possible alternative in controlling bacterial rice pathogens, which involves the application of eco-friendly microbes that control pathogens and improve plant growth. With the awareness on the usage of PGPB in the agricultural sector, their isolation and characterization are highly demanded, especially for use in rice plant protection. Varieties of bacterial genera, including Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Enterobacter, and Streptomyces, are promising as rice plant co-inoculants. Their application in the form of bioformulations could potentially improve the sustainable production of rice. The use of a bacterium or a consortium of PGPB in correct bioformulations provides a remarkable solution for a more sustainable agricultural future. In conclusion, the studies mentioned in this review support the progress in characterizing PGPB and designing bioformulations for use in rice plant protection to manage bacterial rice pathogens. In addition, this review highlighted the importance of continuing research on the applicability of PGPB, which, up to now, are scarcely used as rice plant co-inoculants to enhance rice production and ensure food security.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.N., E.M.H. and M.T.Y.; methodology, M.S.N., E.M.H. and M.T.Y.; investigation, M.S.N. and E.M.H.; data curation, M.S.N., E.M.H. and M.T.Y.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.N.; writing—review and editing, M.S.N., E.M.H. and M.T.Y.; validation, M.S.N., E.M.H., D.Z., S.I.I., M.R.I., N.A.I.M.Z., N.B.S. and M.T.Y.; supervision, E.M.H., M.R.I., N.A.I.M.Z., N.B.S. and M.T.Y.; project administration, E.M.H., D.Z., S.I.I., M.T.Y. and M.R.I.; funding acquisition, M.R.I. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Long-Term Research Grant Scheme (LRGS/1/2019/UPM/2) under the Ministry of Higher Education Malaysia (MOHE).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

We thank the staff from the Department of Plant Protection, Faculty of Agriculture, Universiti Putra Malaysia, for their excellent technical assistance.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Firdaus, R.B.R.; Leong Tan, M.; Rahmat, S.R.; Senevi Gunaratne, M. Paddy, rice and food security in Malaysia: A review of climate change impacts. Cogent Soc. Sci. 2020, 6, 1818373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Saha, S.; Garg, R.; Biswas, A.; Rai, A.B. Bacterial diseases of rice: An overview. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2015, 9, 725–736. [Google Scholar]
  3. Jiang, N.; Yan, J.; Liang, Y.; Shi, Y.; He, Z.; Wu, Y.; Zeng, Q.; Liu, X.; Peng, J. Resistance genes and their interactions with Bacterial Blight/Leaf Streak pathogens (Xanthomonas oryzae) in rice (Oryza sativa L.)-An updated review. Rice 2020, 13, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Azizi, M.M.F.; Ismail, S.I.; Ina-Salwany, M.Y.; Hata, E.M.; Zulperi, D. The emergence of Pantoea species as a future threat to global rice production. J. Plant. Prot. Res. 2020, 60, 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Shew, A.M.; Durand-Morat, A.; Nalley, L.L.; Zhou, X.G.; Rojas, C.; Thoma, G. Warming increases Bacterial Panicle Blight (Burkholderia glumae) occurrences and impacts on USA rice production. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0219199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Rani, U.; Kumar, V. Microbial bioformulations: Present and future aspects. In Nanobiotechnology in Bioformulations; Springer: Chem, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 243–258. [Google Scholar]
  7. Prasad, M.; Srinivasan, R.; Chaudhary, M.; Choudhary, M.; Jat, L.K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for sustainable agriculture: Perspectives and challenges. In PGPR Amelioration in Sustainable Agriculture; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2019; pp. 129–157. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sharma, T.; Kumar, N.; Rai, N. Isolation, screening and characterization of PGPR isolates from rhizosphere of rice plants in Kashipur region (Tarai region). Biotechnol. Int. 2012, 5, 69–84. [Google Scholar]
  9. Jeyanthi, V.; Kanimozhi, S. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR)-prospective and mechanisms: A review. J. Pure Appl. Microbiol. 2018, 12, 733–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Tiwari, S.; Prasad, V.; Chauhan, P.S.; Lata, C. Bacillus amyloliquefaciens confers tolerance to various abiotic stresses and modulates plant response to phytohormones through osmoprotection and gene expression regulation in rice. Front. Plant. Sci. 2017, 8, 1510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Xiao, A.W.; Li, Z.; Li, W.C.; Ye, Z.H. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) on arsenic accumulation and the growth of rice plants (Oryza sativa L.). Chemosphere 2020, 242, 125136. [Google Scholar]
  12. Ghaffari, H.; Gholizadeh, A.; Biabani, A.; Fallah, A.; Mohammadian, M. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) application with different nitrogen fertilizer levels in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Pertanika J. Trop. Agric. Sci. 2018, 41, 715–728. [Google Scholar]
  13. Mitra, S.; Pramanik, K.; Sarkar, A.; Ghosh, P.K.; Soren, T.; Maiti, T.K. Bioaccumulation of cadmium by Enterobacter sp. and enhancement of rice seedling growth under cadmium stress. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2018, 156, 183–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Gopalakrishnan, S.; Srinivas, V.; Vidya, M.S.; Rathore, A. Plant growth-promoting activities of Streptomyces spp. in sorghum and rice. Springerplus 2013, 2, 574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Jambhulkar, P.P.; Sharma, P. Promotion of rice seedling growth characteristics by development and use of bioformulation of Pseudomonas fluorescens. Indian J. Agric. Sci. 2013, 83, 136–142. [Google Scholar]
  16. Jambhulkar, P.P.; Sharma, P. Development of bioformulation and delivery system of Pseudomonas fluorescens against Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae). J. Environ. Biol. 2014, 35, 843–849. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  17. Suryadi, Y.; Susilowati, D.N.; Kadir, T.S.; Zaffan, Z.R.; Hikmawati, N.; Mubarik, N.S. Bioformulation of antagonistic bacterial consortium for controlling Blast, Sheath Blight and Bacterial Blight disease on rice. Asian J. Plant. Pathol. 2013, 7, 92–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Sharma, A.; Shankhdhar, D.; Sharma, A.; Shankhdhar, S.C. Growth promotion of the rice genotypes by PGPRs isolated from rice rhizosphere. J. Soil Sci. Plant. Nutr. 2014, 14, 505–517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  19. Harikrishnan, H.; Shanmugaiah, V.; Balasubramanian, N. Optimization for production of indole acetic acid (IAA) by plant growth promoting Streptomyces sp. VSMGT1014 isolated from rice rhizosphere. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2014, 3, 158–171. [Google Scholar]
  20. Ashrafuzzaman, M.; Hossen, F.A.; Ismail, M.R.; Hoque, M.A.; Islam, M.Z.; Shahidullah, S.M.; Meon, S. Efficiency of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for the enhancement of rice growth. African J. Biotechnol. 2009, 8, 1247–1252. [Google Scholar]
  21. Peñaloza Atuesta, G.C.; Murillo Arango, W.; Eras, J.; Oliveros, D.F.; Méndez Arteaga, J.J. Rice-associated rhizobacteria as a source of secondary metabolites against Burkholderia glumae. Molecules 2020, 25, 2567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Suryadi, Y.; Susilowati, D.N.; Fauziah, F. Management of plant diseases by PGPR-mediated induced resistance with special reference to tea and rice crops. Plant. Growth Promot. Rhizobacteria Sustain. Stress Manag. 2019, 65–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rahma, H.; Nurbailis; Kristina, N. Characterization and potential of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on rice seedling growth and the effect on Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Biodiversitas 2019, 20, 3654–3661. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Wubneh, W.Y.; Bayu, F.A. Assessment of diseases on rice (Oriza sativa L.) in major growing fields of Pawe district, northwestern Ethiopia. World Sci. News 2016, 42, 13–23. [Google Scholar]
  25. Rajarajeswari, N.V.L.; Muralidharan, K. Assessments of farm yield and district production loss from Bacterial Leaf Blight epidemics in rice. Crop. Prot. 2006, 25, 244–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wonni, I.; Hutin, M.; Ouedrago, L.; Somda, I.; Verdier, V.; Szurek, B. Evaluation of elite rice varieties unmasks new sources of Bacterial Blight and Leaf Streak resistance for Africa. Rice Res. Open Access 2016, 4, 162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Nandakumar, R.; Shahjahan, A.K.M.; Yuan, X.L.; Dickstein, E.R.; Groth, D.E.; Clark, C.A.; Cartwright, R.D.; Rush, M.C. Burkholderia glumae and B. gladioli cause Bacterial Panicle Blight in rice in the southern United States. Plant. Dis. 2009, 93, 896–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  28. Niño-Liu, D.O.; Ronald, P.C.; Bogdanove, A.J. Xanthomonas oryzae pathovars: Model pathogens of a model crop. Mol. Plant. Pathol. 2006, 7, 303–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zhou-qi, C.; Bo, Z.; Guan-lin, X.; Bin, L.; Shi-wen, H. Research status and prospect of Burkholderia glumae, the pathogen causing Bacterial Panicle Blight. Rice Sci. 2016, 23, 111–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Doni, F.; Suhaimi, N.S.M.; Mohamed, Z.; Ishak, N.; Mispan, M.S. Pantoea: A newly identified causative agent for Leaf Blight Disease in rice. J. Plant. Dis. Prot. 2019, 126, 491–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Von Bodman, S.B.; Bauer, W.D.; Coplin, D.L. Quorum sensing in plant-pathogenic bacteria. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2003, 41, 455–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Hugouvieux-Cotte-Pattat, N.; Condemine, G.; Shevchik, V.E. Bacterial Pectate lyases, structural and functional diversity. Environ. Microbiol. Rep. 2014, 6, 427–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Aslam, S.N.; Newman, M.; Erbs, G.; Morrissey, K.L.; Chinchilla, D.; Boller, T.; Jensen, T.T.; De Castro, C.; Ierano, T.; Molinaro, A.; et al. Bacterial polysaccharides suppress induced innate immunity by calcium chelation. Curr. Biol. 2008, 18, 1078–1083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zakaria, L.; Misman, N. The pathogen and control management of Rice Blast Disease. Malays. J. Microbiol. 2018, 14, 705–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Mizobuchi, R.; Fukuoka, S.; Tsuiki, C.; Tsushima, S.; Sato, H. Evaluation of major japanese rice cultivars for resistance to bacterial grain rot caused by Burkholderia glumae and identification of standard cultivars for resistance. Breed. Sci. 2018, 68, 413–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  36. van Esse, H.P.; Reuber, T.L.; van der Does, D. Genetic modification to improve disease resistance in crops. New Phytol. 2020, 225, 70–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Gnanamanickam, S.S.; Candole, B.L.; Mew, T.W. Influence of soil factors and cultural practice on biological control of Sheath Blight of rice with antagonistic bacteria. Plant. Soil 1992, 144, 67–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Howard, R.J. Cultural control of plant diseases: A historical perspective. Can. J. Plant. Pathol. 1996, 18, 145–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Obi, V.I. Activity of botanical extracts on paddy rice pathogen. Am. J. Sustain. Agric. 2012, 6, 66–73. [Google Scholar]
  40. Naqvi, S.A.H.; Umar, U.; Hasnain, A.; Rehman, A.; Perveen, R. Effect of botanical extracts: A potential biocontrol agent for Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, causing Bacterial Leaf Blight disease of rice. Pakistan J. Agricltural Res. 2018, 32, 59–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Lakshmanan, V.; Thangaraj, M.; Ponnusamy, B.; Santhiraka, S.; Kannan, R.; Regunathan, U.; Selvaraj, S. Antibacterial activity of Rhizophora apiculata leaf extract for the management of rice Bacterial Blight disease. Plant. Pathol. J. 2019, 18, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  42. Khan, J.A.; Siddiq, R.; Arshad, H.M.I.; Anwar, H.S.; Saleem, K.; Jamil, F.F. Chemical control of Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Pak. J. Phytopathol. 2012, 24, 97–100. [Google Scholar]
  43. Qudsia, H.; Akhter, M.; Riaz, A.; Haider, Z.; Mahmood, A. Comparative efficacy of different chemical treatments for paddy Blast, Brown Leaf Spot and Bacterial Leaf Blight diseases in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Appl. Microbiol. Open Access 2017, 3, 138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  44. Mahmood, T.; White, F. Disease resistance and susceptibility genes to bacterial blight of rice. In Protecting Rice Grains in the Post-Genomic Era; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  45. Wang, L.; Makino, S.; Subedee, A.; Bogdanove, A.J. Novel candidate virulence factors in rice pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola as revealed by mutational analysis. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 73, 8023–8027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Xu, H.; Gao, Y.; Wang, J. Transcriptomic analysis of rice (Oryza sativa) developing embryos using the RNA-seq technique. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e30646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  47. Wang, C.; Tariq, R.; Ji, Z.; Wei, Z.; Zheng, K.; Mishra, R.; Zhao, K. Transcriptome analysis of a rice cultivar reveals the differentially expressed genes in response to wild and mutant strains of Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 3757. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  48. Bangratz, M.; Wonni, I.; Kini, K.; Sondo, M.; Brugidou, C.; Béna, G.; Gnacko, F.; Barro, M.; Koebnik, R.; Silué, D.; et al. Design of a new multiplex PCR assay for rice pathogenic bacteria detection and its application to infer disease incidence and detect co-infection in rice fields in Burkina Faso. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0232115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lang, J.M.; Pérez-Quintero, A.L.; Koebnik, R.; DuCharme, E.; Sarra, S.; Doucoure, H.; Keita, I.; Ziegle, J.; Jacobs, J.M.; Oliva, R.; et al. A pathovar of Xanthomonas oryzae infecting wild grasses provides insight into the evolution of pathogenicity in rice agroecosystems. Front. Plant. Sci. 2019, 10, 507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wamishe, Y.; Cartwright, R.; Lee, F. Management of rice diseases. In Rice Production Handbook; University of Arkansas Coop Extension Service: Little Rock, AR, USA, 2001; pp. 87–100. [Google Scholar]
  51. Liu, H.; Qiu, H.; Zhao, W.; Cui, Z.; Ibrahim, M.; Jin, G.; Li, B.; Zhu, B.; Xie, G.L. Genome sequence of the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pv. panici LMG 2367. J. Bacteriol. 2012, 194, 5693–5694. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Li, B.; Liu, B.; Yu, R.; Tao, Z.; Wang, Y.; Xie, G.; Li, H.; Sun, G. Bacterial Brown Stripe of rice in soil-less culture system caused by Acidovorax avenae subsp. avenae in China. J. Gen. Plant. Pathol. 2011, 77, 64–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Ishiyama, S. Studies on Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice. Rep. Agric. Exp. Stn. 1922, 45, 233–261. [Google Scholar]
  54. Kini, K.; Agnimonhan, R.; Afolabi, O.; Soglonou, B.; Silué, D.; Koebnik, R. First report of a new Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice caused by Pantoea ananatis and Pantoea stewartii in Togo. Plant. Dis. 2017, 101, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Azizi, M.M.F.; Ismail, S.I.; Hata, E.M.; Zulperi, D.; Ina-Salwany, M.Y.; Abdullah, M.A.F. First report of Pantoea stewartii subsp. indologenes causing Leaf Blight on rice in Malaysia. Plant. Dis. 2019, 103, 1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Lee, H.B.; Hong, J.P.; Kim, S.B. First report of Leaf Blight caused by Pantoea agglomerans on rice in Korea. Plant. Dis. 2010, 94, 1372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. OEPP/EPPO. Xanthomonas oryzae; EPPO Bulletin: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2007; Volume 37, pp. 543–553. [Google Scholar]
  58. Kuwata, H. Pseudomonas syringae pv. oryze pv. nov. causal agent of bacterial Halo Blight of rice. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1985, 51, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Tanii, A.; Miyajima, K.; Akita, T. The Sheath Brown Rot disease of rice plant and its causal bacterium, Pseudomonas fuscovaginae. Ann. Phytopathol. Soc. Jpn. 1976, 42, 540–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Zeigler, R.S.; Alvarez, E. Characteristics of Pseudomonas spp. causing grain discoloration and Sheath Rot of rice, and associated pseudomonad epiphytes. Plant. Dis. 1990, 74, 917–922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Azegami, K. Bacterial Palea Browning, a new disease of rice caused by Erwinia herbicola. Bull. Natl. Inst. Agric. Sci. Ser. C 1983, 37, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  62. Yan, H.; Yu, S.H.; Xie, G.L.; Fang, W.; Su, T.; Li, B. Grain discoloration of rice caused by Pantoea ananatis (synonym Erwinia uredovora) in China. Plant. Dis. 2010, 94, 482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Cao, P.; Li, C.; Tan, K.; Liu, C.; Xu, X.; Zhang, S.; Wang, X.; Zhao, J.; Xiang, W. Characterization, phylogenetic analyses, and pathogenicity of Enterobacter cloacae on rice seedlings in Heilongjiang Province, China. Plant. Dis. 2020, 104, 1601–1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Goto, M. Bacterial Foot Rot of rice caused by a strain of Erwinia chrysanthemi. Phytopathology 1979, 69, 213–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Pu, X.M.; Zhou, J.N.; Lin, B.R.; Shen, H.F. First report of Bacterial Foot Rot of rice caused by a Dickeya zeae in China. Plant. Dis. 2012, 96, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. García-Salamanca, A.; Molina-Henares, M.A.; van Dillewijn, P.; Solano, J.; Pizarro-Tobías, P.; Roca, A.; Duque, E.; Ramos, J.L. Bacterial diversity in the rhizosphere of maize and the surrounding carbonate-rich bulk soil. Microb. Biotechnol. 2013, 6, 36–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Baptist, F.; Aranjuelo, I.; Legay, N.; Lopez-Sangil, L.; Molero, G.; Rovira, P.; Nogués, S. Rhizodeposition of organic carbon by plants with contrasting traits for resource acquisition: Responses to different fertility regimes. Plant. Soil 2015, 394, 391–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Huang, X.F.; Chaparro, J.M.; Reardon, K.F.; Zhang, R.; Shen, Q.; Vivanco, J.M. Rhizosphere interactions: Root exudates, microbes, and microbial communities. Botany 2014, 92, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhou, D.; Huang, X.F.; Chaparro, J.M.; Badri, D.V.; Manter, D.K.; Vivanco, J.M.; Guo, J. Root and bacterial secretions regulate the interaction between plants and PGPR leading to distinct plant growth promotion effects. Plant. Soil 2016, 401, 259–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Kumari, B.; Mallick, M.A.; Solanki, M.K. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): Modern prospects for sustainable agriculture. In Plant Health under Biotic Stress; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 109–127. [Google Scholar]
  71. Verma, M.; Mishra, J.; Arora, N.K. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria: Diversity and applications. In Environmental Biotechnology: For Sustainable Future; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 129–173. [Google Scholar]
  72. Kumar, A.; Kumar, R.; Kumari, M.; Goldar, S. Enhancement of plant growth by using PGPR for a sustainable agriculture: A review. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2020, 9, 152–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kloepper, J.W. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (other systems). In Azospirillum/Plant Associations; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1994; pp. 137–166. [Google Scholar]
  74. Tabassum, B.; Khan, A.; Tariq, M.; Ramzan, M.; Iqbal Khan, M.S.; Shahid, N.; Aaliya, K. Bottlenecks in commercialisation and future prospects of PGPR. Appl. Soil Ecol. 2017, 121, 102–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Kashyap, B.K.; Solanki, M.K.; Pandey, A.K.; Prabha, S.; Kumar, P.; Kumari, B. Bacillus as plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A promising green agriculture technology. In Plant Health under Biotic Stress; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 219–236. [Google Scholar]
  76. Goswami, D.; Thakker, J.N.; Dhandhukia, P.C. Portraying mechanics of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR): A review. Cogent Food Agric. 2016, 2, 1127500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Aeron, A.; Kumar, S.; Pandey, P.; Maheshwari, D.K. Emerging role of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria in agrobiology. In Bacteria in Agrobiology: Crop Ecosystems; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011; pp. 1–36. [Google Scholar]
  78. Amara, U.; Khalid, R.; Hayat, R. Soil bacteria and phytohormones for sustainable crop production. In Bacterial Metabolites in Sustainable Agroecosystem; Springer: Chem, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 87–103. [Google Scholar]
  79. Hedden, P.; Phillips, A.L. Gibberellin metabolism: New insights revealed by the genes. Trends Plant. Sci. 2000, 5, 523–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Eskew, D.L.; Focht, D.D.; Ting, I.P. Nitrogen fixation, denitrification, and pleomorphic growth in a highly pigmented Spirillum lipoferum. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1977, 34, 582–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Sajjad Mirza, M.; Ahmad, W.; Latif, F.; Haurat, J.; Bally, R.; Normand, P.; Malik, K.A. Isolation, Partial characterization, and the effect of plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB) on micro-propagated sugarcane in vitro. Plant. Soil 2001, 237, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Hardy, R.W.F.; Burns, R.C.; Holsten, R.D. Applications of the acetylene-ethylene assay for measurement of nitrogen fixation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1973, 5, 47–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Pikovskaya, R.I. Mobilization of phosphorus in soil in connection with vital activity of some microbial species. Mikrobiologiya 1948, 17, 362–370. [Google Scholar]
  84. Mahmoud, A.; Abd-Alla, M. Siderophore production by some microorganisms and their effect on bradyrhizobium-mung bean symbiosis. Int. J. Agric. Biol. 2001, 3, 157–162. [Google Scholar]
  85. Gutierrez, C.K.; Matsui, G.Y.; Lincoln, D.E.; Lovell, C.R. Production of the phytohormone indole-3-acetic acid by estuarine species of the genus Vibrio. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 2009, 75, 2253–2258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  86. Gordon, S.A.; Weber, R.P. Colorimetric estimation of indoleacetic acid. Anal. Biochem. 1951, 26, 192–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  87. Tien, T.M.; Gaskins, M.H.; Hubbell, D.H. Plant growth substances produced by Azospirillum brasilense and their effect on the growth of pearl millet (Pennisetum americanum L.). Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 1979, 37, 1016–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Wilson, P.W.; Knight, S.G. Experiments in Bacterial Physiology; Burgess Publishing Co.: Minneapolis, MN, USA, 1952. [Google Scholar]
  89. Gonzalez-Lopez, J.; Salmeron, V.; Martinez-Toledo, M.V.; Ballesteros, F.; Ramos-Cormenzana, A. Production of auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins by Azotobacter vinelandh ATCC 12837 in chemically-defined media and dialysed soil media. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1986, 18, 119–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Borrow, A.; Brian, P.W.; Chester, V.E.; Curtis, P.J.; Hemming, H.G.; Henehan, C.; Jeffreys, E.G.; Lloyd, P.B.; Nixon, I.S.; Norris, G.L.F.; et al. Gibberellic acid, a metabolic product of the fungus Gibberella fujikuroi: Some observations on its production and isolation. J. Sci. Food Agric. 1955, 6, 340–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Dworkin, M.; Foster, J.W. Experiments with some microorganisms which utilize ethane and hydrogen. J. Bacteriol. 1958, 75, 592–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  92. Honma, M.; Smmomura, T. Metabolism of 1-aminocyclopropane-1-carboxylic acid. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1978, 42, 1825–1831. [Google Scholar]
  93. Bakker, A.W.; Schippers, B. Microbial cyanide production in the rhizosphere in relation to potato yield reduction and Pseudomonas spp-mediated plant growth-stimulation. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1987, 19, 451–457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Lorck, H. Production of hydrocyanic acid by bacteria. Physiol. Plant. 1948, 1, 142–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Pollock, H.M.; Barry, A.L.; Gavan, T.L.; Fuchs, P.C.; Hansen, S.; Thornsberry, C.L.; Frankel, H.; Forsythe, S.B. Selection of a reference lot of mueller-hinton agar. J. Clin. Microbiol. 1986, 24, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Balouiri, M.; Sadiki, M.; Ibnsouda, S.K. Methods for in vitro evaluating antimicrobial activity: A review. J. Pharm. Anal. 2016, 6, 71–79. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  97. Glick, B.R. Bacteria with ACC deaminase can promote plant growth and help to feed the world. Microbiol. Res. 2014, 169, 30–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  98. Flury, P.; Vesga, P.; Péchy-Tarr, M.; Aellen, N.; Dennert, F.; Hofer, N.; Kupferschmied, K.P.; Kupferschmied, P.; Metla, Z.; Ma, Z.; et al. Antimicrobial and insecticidal: Cyclic lipopeptides and hydrogen cyanide produced by plant-beneficial Pseudomonas strains CHA0, CMR12a, and PCL1391 contribute to insect killing. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Arshad, M.; Saleem, M.; Hussain, S. Perspectives of bacterial ACC deaminase in phytoremediation. Trends Biotechnol. 2007, 25, 356–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Glick, B.R. Plant growth-promoting bacteria: Mechanisms and applications. Scientifica 2012, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  101. Zahir, Z.A.; Munir, A.; Asghar, H.N.; Shaharoona, B.; Arshad, M. Effectiveness of rhizobacteria containing ACC deaminase for growth promotion of peas (Pisum sativum) under drought conditions. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 18, 958–963. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  102. Etesami, H. Plant growth promotion and suppression of fungal pathogens in rice (Oryza sativa L.) by plant growth-promoting bacteria. In Field Crops: Sustainable Management by PGPR; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 351–383. [Google Scholar]
  103. Li, Y.; Li, X.; Jia, D.; Liu, J.; Wang, J.; Liu, A.; Liu, Z.; Guan, G.; Liu, G.; Luo, J.; et al. Complete genome sequence and antimicrobial activity of Bacillus velezensis JT3-1, a microbial germicide isolated from yak feces. 3 Biotech. 2020, 10, 231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Ngalimat, M.S.; Raja Abd Rahman, R.N.Z.; Yusof, M.T.; Syahir, A.; Sabri, S. Characterisation of bacteria isolated from the stingless bee, Heterotrigona itama, honey, bee bread and propolis. PeerJ 2019, 7, e7478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  105. Liu, J.; Cui, X.; Liu, Z.; Guo, Z.; Yu, Z.; Yao, Q.; Sui, Y.; Jin, J.; Liu, X.; Wang, G. The diversity and geographic distribution of cultivable Bacillus-like bacteria across black soils of northeast China. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Ducrest, P.J.; Pfammatter, S.; Stephan, D.; Vogel, G.; Thibault, P.; Schnyder, B. Rapid detection of Bacillus ionophore cereulide in food products. Sci. Rep. 2019, 9, 5814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  107. Kuebutornye, F.K.A.; Abarike, E.D.; Lu, Y. A review on the application of Bacillus as probiotics in aquaculture. Fish. Shellfish Immunol. 2019, 87, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Radhakrishnan, R.; Hashem, A.; Abd Allah, E.F. Bacillus: A biological tool for crop improvement through bio-molecular changes in adverse environments. Front. Physiol. 2017, 8, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Shakeel, M.; Rais, A.; Hassan, M.N.; Hafeez, F.H. Root associated Bacillus sp. improves growth, yield and zinc translocation for basmati rice (Oryza sativa) varieties. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  110. Elekhtyar, N. Efficiency of Pseudomonas fluorescens as plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) for the enhancement of seedling vigor, nitrogen uptake, yield and its attributes of rice (Oryza sativa L.). Int. J. Sci. Res. Agric. Sci. 2016, 2, 57–67. [Google Scholar]
  111. Win, K.T.; Win, A.Z.O.; Ohkama-Ohtsu, N.; Yokoyama, T. Bacillus pumilus strain TUAT-1 and nitrogen application in nursery phase promote growth of rice plants under field conditions. Agronomy 2018, 8, 216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  112. Nautiyal, C.S.; Srivastava, S.; Chauhan, P.S.; Seem, K.; Mishra, A.; Sopory, S.K. Plant growth-promoting bacteria Bacillus amyloliquefaciens NBRISN13 modulates gene expression profile of leaf and rhizosphere community in rice during salt stress. Plant. Physiol. Biochem. 2013, 66, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Srivastava, S.; Bist, V.; Srivastava, S.; Singh, P.C.; Trivedi, P.K.; Asif, M.H.; Chauhan, P.S.; Nautiyal, C.S. Unraveling aspects of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens mediated enhanced production of rice under biotic stress of Rhizoctonia solani. Front. Plant. Sci. 2016, 7, 587. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  114. Shultana, R.; Kee Zuan, A.T.; Yusop, M.R.; Saud, H.M. Characterization of salt-tolerant plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria and the effect on growth and yield of saline-affected rice. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0238537. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Shultana, R.; Tan Kee Zuan, A.; Yusop, M.R.; Mohd Saud, H.; Ayanda, A.F. Effect of salt-tolerant bacterial inoculations on rice seedlings differing in salt-tolerance under saline soil conditions. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Aswathy, S.K.; Sridar, R.; Sivakumar, U. Mitigation of drought in rice by a phyllosphere bacterium Bacillus altitudinis FD48. African, J. Microbiol. Res. 2017, 11, 1614–1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  117. Rais, A.; Jabeen, Z.; Shair, F.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Hassan, M.N. Bacillus spp. a bio-control agent enhances the activity of antioxidant defense enzymes in rice against Pyricularia oryzae. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0187412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  118. Shafi, J.; Tian, H.; Ji, M. Bacillus species as versatile weapons for plant pathogens: A review. Biotechnol. Biotechnol. Equip. 2017, 31, 446–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  119. Jin, P.; Wang, Y.; Tan, Z.; Liu, W.; Miao, W. Antibacterial activity and rice-induced resistance, mediated by C15surfactin A, in controlling rice disease caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Pestic. Biochem. Physiol. 2020, 169, 104669. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Belbahri, L.; Chenari Bouket, A.; Rekik, I.; Alenezi, F.N.; Vallat, A.; Luptakova, L.; Petrovova, E.; Oszako, T.; Cherrad, S.; Vacher, S.; et al. Comparative genomics of Bacillus amyloliquefaciens strains reveals a core genome with traits for habitat adaptation and a secondary metabolites rich accessory genome. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Chithrashree; Udayashankar, A.C.; Chandra Nayaka, S.; Reddy, M.S.; Srinivas, C. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria mediate induced systemic resistance in rice against Bacterial Leaf Blight caused by Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Biol. Control. 2011, 59, 114–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Jayaraj, J.; Anand, A.; Muthukrishnan, S.; Punja, Z. Pathogenesis-Related Proteins and Their Roles in Resistance to Fungal Pathogens; Food Products Press: New York, NY, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
  123. Fira, D.; Dimkić, I.; Berić, T.; Lozo, J.; Stanković, S. Biological control of plant pathogens by Bacillus species. J. Biotechnol. 2018, 285, 44–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Wu, G.; Liu, Y.; Xu, Y.; Zhang, G.; Shen, Q.; Zhang, R. Exploring elicitors of the beneficial rhizobacterium Bacillus amyloliquefaciens SQR9 to induce plant systemic resistance and their interactions with plant signaling pathways. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 2018, 31, 560–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  125. Sarwar, A.; Hassan, M.N.; Imran, M.; Iqbal, M.; Majeed, S.; Brader, G.; Sessitsch, A.; Hafeez, F.Y. Biocontrol activity of surfactin a purified from Bacillus NH-100 and NH-217 against Rice Bakanae Disease. Microbiol. Res. 2018, 209, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Raaijmakers, J.M.; De Bruijn, I.; Nybroe, O.; Ongena, M. Natural functions of lipopeptides from Bacillus and Pseudomonas: More than surfactants and antibiotics. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2010, 34, 1037–1062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  127. Ongena, M.; Jourdan, E.; Adam, A.; Paquot, M.; Brans, A.; Joris, B.; Arpigny, J.L.; Thonart, P. Surfactin and fengycin lipopeptides of Bacillus subtilis as elicitors of induced systemic resistance in plants. Environ. Microbiol. 2007, 9, 1084–1090. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Jourdan, E.; Henry, G.; Duby, F.; Dommes, J.; Barthelemy, J.P.; Thonart, P.; Ongena, M.A.R.C. Insights into the defense-related events occurring in plant cells following perception of surfactin-type lipopeptide from Bacillus subtilis. Mol. Plant. Microbe Interact. 2009, 22, 456–468. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  129. Wu, L.; Wu, H.; Chen, L.; Yu, X.; Borriss, R.; Gao, X. Difficidin and bacilysin from Bacillus amyloliquefaciens FZB42 have antibacterial activity against Xanthomonas oryzae rice pathogens. Sci. Rep. 2015, 5, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  130. Anayo, O.F.; Scholastica, E.C.; Peter, O.C.; Nneji, U.G.; Obinna, A.; Mistura, L.O. The beneficial roles of Pseudomonas in medicine, industries, and environment: A review. In Pseudomonas Aeruginosa-An Armory Within; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  131. Diggle, S.P.; Whiteley, M. Microbe profile: Pseudomonas aeruginosa: Opportunistic pathogen and lab rat. Microbiology 2020, 166, 30–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Morris, C.E.; Sands, D.C.; Vinatzer, B.A.; Glaux, C.; Guilbaud, C.; Buffière, A.; Yan, S.; Dominguez, H.; Thompson, B.M. The life history of the plant pathogen Pseudomonas syringae is linked to the water cycle. ISME J. 2008, 2, 321–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. Kandaswamy, R.; Ramasamy, M.K.; Palanivel, R.; Balasundaram, U. Impact of Pseudomonas putida RRF3 on the root transcriptome of rice plants: Insights into defense response, secondary metabolism and root exudation. J. Biosci. 2019, 44, 98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. David, B.V.; Chandrasehar, G.; Selvam, P.N. Pseudomonas fluorescens: A plant-growth-promoting rhizobacterium (PGPR) with potential role in biocontrol of pests of crops. In Crop Improvement through Microbial Biotechnology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 221–243. [Google Scholar]
  135. Saikia, R.; Kumar, R.; Arora, D.K.; Gogoi, D.K.; Azad, P. Pseudomonas aeruginosa inducing rice resistance against Rhizoctonia solani: Production of salicylic acid and peroxidases. Folia Microbiol. 2006, 51, 375–380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Yasmin, S.; Hafeez, F.Y.; Mirza, M.S.; Rasul, M.; Arshad, H.M.I.; Zubair, M.; Iqbal, M. Biocontrol of Bacterial Leaf Blight of rice and profiling of secondary metabolites produced by rhizospheric Pseudomonas aeruginosa BRp3. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 1895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  137. Gutiérrez-Barranquero, J.A.; Cazorla, F.M.; de Vicente, A. Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae associated with mango trees, a particular pathogen within the “hodgepodge” of the Pseudomonas syringae complex. Front. Plant. Sci. 2019, 10, 570. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  138. Hirano, S.S.; Upper, C.D. Bacteria in the leaf ecosystem with emphasis on Pseudomonas syringae-a pathogen, ice nucleus, and epiphyte. Microbiol. Mol. Biol. Rev. 2000, 64, 624–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  139. Passera, A.; Compant, S.; Casati, P.; Maturo, M.G.; Battelli, G.; Quaglino, F.; Antonielli, L.; Salerno, D.; Brasca, M.; Toffolatti, S.L.; et al. Not just a pathogen? description of a plant-beneficial Pseudomonas syringae strain. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 1409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  140. Lavakush; Yadav, J.; Verma, J.P. Isolation and characterization of effective plant growth promoting rhizobacteria from rice rhizosphere of indian soil. Asian J. Biol. Sci. 2012, 5, 294–303. [Google Scholar]
  141. Habibi, S.; Djedidi, S.; Ohkama-Ohtsu, N.; Sarhadi, W.A.; Kojima, K.; Rallos, R.V.; Ramirez, M.D.A.; Yamaya, H.; Sekimoto, H.; Yokoyama, T. Isolation and screening of indigenous plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria from different rice cultivars in afghanistan soils. Microbes Environ. 2019, 34, 347–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Awasthi, S.; Chauhan, R.; Dwivedi, S.; Srivastava, S.; Srivastava, S.; Tripathi, R.D. A consortium of alga (Chlorella vulgaris) and bacterium (Pseudomonas putida) for amelioration of arsenic toxicity in rice: A promising and feasible approach. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2018, 150, 115–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jha, Y.; Subramanian, R.B. Characterization of root-associated bacteria from paddy and its growth-promotion efficacy. 3 Biotech. 2014, 4, 325–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Lingaiah, S.; Umesha, S. Pseudomonas fluorescens inhibits the Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, the Bacterial Leaf Blight pathogen in rice. Can. J. Plant. Prot. 2013, 1, 147–153. [Google Scholar]
  145. Velusamy, P.; Ebenezar Immanuel, J.; Gnanamanickam, S.S.; Thomashow, L. Biological control of rice Bacterial Blight by plant-associated bacteria producing 2,4-diacetylphloroglucinol. Can. J. Microbiol. 2006, 52, 56–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Jha, C.K.; Aeron, A.; Patel, B.V.; Dinesh, K. Bacteria in Agrobiology: Plant. Growth Responses; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  147. Kumar, V.; Jain, L.; Jain, S.K.; Chaturvedi, S.; Kaushal, P. Bacterial endophytes of rice (Oryza sativa L.) and their potential for plant growth promotion and antagonistic activities. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2020, 134, 50–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Chen, W.L.; Li, D.B.; Ge, Q.X. A study on Enterobacter cloacae B8, Bacillus subtilis B826 and their antagonistic substance to Xanthomonas campestris pv. oryzae. Acta Agric. Univ. Zhejiangensis 1990, 16 (Suppl. 2), 61–67. [Google Scholar]
  149. Hongfei, C.W.; Debao, L. Study on the coloninzation of Enterobacter cloacae B8x on rice leaves and its control of rice Bacterial Leaf Blight (Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae). J. Agric. Biotechnol. 1994, 2. [Google Scholar]
  150. Pramanik, K.; Mitra, S.; Sarkar, A.; Soren, T.; Maiti, T.K. Characterization of a Cd2+-resistant plant growth promoting rhizobacterium (Enterobacter sp.) and its effects on rice seedling growth promotion under Cd2+-stress in vitro. Agric. Nat. Resour. 2018, 52, 215–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Pramanik, K.; Mitra, S.; Sarkar, A.; Maiti, T.K. Alleviation of phytotoxic effects of cadmium on rice seedlings by cadmium resistant PGPR strain Enterobacter aerogenes MCC 3092. J. Hazard. Mater. 2018, 351, 317–329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Pattnaik, S.; Dash, D.; Mohapatra, S.; Pattnaik, M.; Marandi, A.K.; Das, S.; Samantaray, D.P. Improvement of rice plant productivity by native Cr(VI) reducing and plant growth promoting soil bacteria Enterobacter cloacae. Chemosphere 2020, 240, 124895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Liu, Y.; Tan, H.; Cao, L.; Zhang, R. Rice sprout endophytic Enterobacter sp. SE-5 could improve tolerance of mature rice plants to salt or Cd2+ in soils. Arch. Agron. Soil Sci. 2020, 66, 873–883. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Sarkar, A.; Ghosh, P.K.; Pramanik, K.; Mitra, S.; Soren, T.; Pandey, S.; Mondal, M.H.; Maiti, T.K. A halotolerant Enterobacter sp. displaying ACC deaminase activity promotes rice seedling growth under salt stress. Res. Microbiol. 2018, 169, 20–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  155. Liu, Y.; Cao, L.; Tan, H.; Zhang, R. Surface display of ACC deaminase on endophytic enterobacteriaceae strains to increase saline resistance of host rice sprouts by regulating plant ethylene synthesis. Microb. Cell Fact. 2017, 16, 214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  156. Mukhtar, S.; Zaheer, A.; Aiysha, D.; Abdulla Malik, K.; Mehnaz, S. Actinomycetes: A source of industrially important enzymes. J. Proteomics Bioinform. 2017, 10, 316–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Quinn, G.A.; Banat, A.M.; Abdelhameed, A.M.; Banat, I.M. Streptomyces from traditional medicine: Sources of new innovations in antibiotic discovery. J. Med. Microbiol. 2020, 69, 1040–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Chater, K.F. Streptomyces inside-out: A new perspective on the bacteria that provide us with antibiotics. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2006, 361, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  159. Ser, H.L.; Tan, L.T.H.; Law, J.W.F.; Chan, K.G.; Duangjai, A.; Saokaew, S.; Pusparajah, P.; Mutalib, N.S.A.; Khan, T.M.; Goh, B.H.; et al. Focused review: Cytotoxic and antioxidant potentials of mangrove-derived Streptomyces. Front. Microbiol. 2017, 8, 2065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  160. Ngalimat, M.S.; Raja Abd Rahman, R.N.Z.; Yusof, M.T.; Amir Hamzah, A.S.; Zawawi, N.; Sabri, S. A review on the association of bacteria with stingless bees. Sains Malays. 2020, 49, 1853–1863. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Subramaniam, G.; Thakur, V.; Saxena, R.K.; Vadlamudi, S.; Purohit, S.; Kumar, V.; Rathore, A.; Chitikineni, A.; Varshney, R.K. Complete genome sequence of sixteen plant growth promoting Streptomyces strains. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 10294. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Viaene, T.; Langendries, S.; Beirinckx, S.; Maes, M.; Goormachtig, S. Streptomyces as a plant’s best friend? FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  163. Ferrer, C.M.; Olivete, E.; Orias, S.L.; Rocas, M.R.; Juan, S.; Dungca, J.Z.; Mahboob, T.; Barusrux, S.; Nissapatorn, V. A review on Streptomyces spp. as plant-growth promoting bacteria (PGPB). Asian J. Pharmacogn. 2018, 2, 32–40. [Google Scholar]
  164. Vurukonda, S.S.; Giovanardi, D.; Stefani, E. Plant growth promoting and biocontrol activity of Streptomyces spp. as endophytes. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  165. Amaresan, N.; Kumar, K.; Naik, J.H.; Bapatla, K.G.; Mishra, R.K. Streptomyces in plant growth promotion: Mechanisms and role. In New and Future Developments in Microbial Biotechnology and Bioengineering; Elsevier: Amsterdan, The Netherlands, 2018; pp. 125–135. [Google Scholar]
  166. Suárez-Moreno, Z.R.; Vinchira-Villarraga, D.M.; Vergara-Morales, D.I.; Castellanos, L.; Ramos, F.A.; Guarnaccia, C.; Degrassi, G.; Venturi, V.; Moreno-Sarmiento, N. Plant-growth promotion and biocontrol properties of three Streptomyces spp. isolates to control bacterial rice pathogens. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  167. Betancur, L.A.; Naranjo-Gaybor, S.J.; Vinchira-Villarraga, D.M.; Moreno-Sarmiento, N.C.; Maldonado, L.A.; Suarez-Moreno, Z.R.; Acosta-González, A.; Padilla-Gonzalez, G.F.; Puyana, M.; Castellanos, L.; et al. Marine actinobacteria as a source of compounds for phytopathogen control: An integrative metabolic-profiling/bioactivity and taxonomical approach. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0170148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Muangham, S.; Pathom-aree, W.; Duangmal, K. Melanogenic actinomycetes from rhizosphere soil-antagonistic activity against Xanthomonas oryzae and plant-growth-promoting traits. Can. J. Microbiol. 2015, 61, 164–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Ham, Y.; Kim, T.J. Anthranilamide from Streptomyces spp. inhibited Xanthomonas oryzae biofilm formation without affecting cell growth. Appl. Biol. Chem. 2018, 61, 673–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  170. Hata, E.M.; Sijam, K.; Ahmad, Z.A.M.; Yusof, M.T.; Azman, N.A. In vitro antimicrobial assay of actinomycetes in rice against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzicola and as potential plant growth promoter. Braz. Arch. Biol. Technol. 2015, 58, 821–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Shang, N.N.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, J.P.; Wang, L.; Luo, J.; Yang, J.; Peng, T.; Yan, Y.; Ma, Y.T.; Huang, S.X. Glycosylated piericidins from an endophytic Streptomyces with cytotoxicity and antimicrobial activity. J. Antibiot. 2018, 71, 672–676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Nanjundan, J.; Ramasamy, R.; Ponnusamy, M. Optimization of culture conditions for antimicrobial metabolites production by Streptomyces sp. against Bacterial Leaf Blight pathogen Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 1187–1191. [Google Scholar]
  173. Ilsan, N.A.; Nawangsih, A.A.; Wahyudi, A.T. Rice phyllosphere actinomycetes as biocontrol agent of Bacterial Leaf Blight disease on rice. Asian J. Plant. Pathol. 2016, 10, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Jaivel, N.; Rajesh, R.; Velmurugan, D.; Marimuthu, P. Antimicrobial activity of a novel secondary metabolite from Streptomyces sp. and molecular docking studies against Bacterial Leaf Blight pathogen of rice. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2017, 6, 2861–2870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Betancur, L.A.; Forero, A.M.; Romero-Otero, A.; Sepúlveda, L.Y.; Moreno-Sarmiento, N.C.; Castellanos, L.; Ramos, F.A. Cyclic tetrapeptides from the marine strain Streptomyces sp. PNM-161a with activity against rice and yam phytopathogens. J. Antibiot. 2019, 72, 744–751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  176. El Karkouri, A.; El Hassani, F.Z.; El Mzibri, M.; Benlemlih, M.; El Hassouni, M. Isolation and identification of an actinomycete strain with a biocontrol effect on the phytopathogenic Erwinia chrysanthemi 3937VIII responsible for soft rot disease. Ann. Microbiol. 2010, 60, 263–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Aeny, T.N.; Prasetyo, J.; Suharjo, R.; Dirmawati, S.R.; Efri; Niswati, A. Short communication: Isolation and identification of actinomycetes potential as the antagonist of Dickeya zeae pineapple soft rot in lampung, indonesia. Biodiversitas 2018, 19, 2052–2058. [Google Scholar]
  178. Huang, K.T.; Misatq, T.; Asuyama, H. Selective toxicity of blasticidin S to Piricularia oryzae and Pellicularia sasakii. J. Antibiot. Ser. A 1963, 17, 71–74. [Google Scholar]
  179. Copping, L.G.; Duke, S.O. Natural products that have been used commercially as crop protection agents. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 524–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Isono, K.; Nagatsu, J.; Kawashima, Y.; Suzuki, S. Studies on polyoxins, antifungal antibiotics. Agric. Biol. Chem. 1965, 29, 848–854. [Google Scholar]
  181. Yang, P.W.; Li, M.G.; Zhao, J.Y.; Zhu, M.Z.; Shang, H.; Li, J.R.; Cui, X.L.; Huang, R.; Wen, M.L. Oligomycins A and C, major secondary metabolites isolated from the newly isolated strain Streptomyces diastaticus. Folia Microbiol. 2010, 55, 10–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Doornbos, R.F.; van Loon, L.C.; Bakker, P.A. Impact of root exudates and plant defense signaling on bacterial communities in the rhizosphere. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2012, 32, 227–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Cordovez, V.; Carrion, V.J.; Etalo, D.W.; Mumm, R.; Zhu, H.; Van Wezel, G.P.; Raaijmakers, J.M. Diversity and functions of volatile organic compounds produced by Streptomyces from a disease-suppressive soil. Front. Microbiol. 2015, 6, 1081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  184. Citron, C.; Barra, L.; Wink, J.; Dickschat, J.S. Volatiles from nineteen recently genome sequenced actinomycetes. Org. Biomol. Chem. 2015, 13, 2673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  185. Cavite, H.J.M.; Mactal, A.G.; Evangelista, E.V.; Cruz, J.A. Growth and yield response of upland rice to application of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria. J. Plant. Growth Regul. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Yanni, Y.G.; Abd El-Fattah, F.K. Towards integrated biofertilization management with free living and associative dinitrogen fixers for enhancing rice performance in the Nile Delta. Symbiosis 1999, 27, 319–331. [Google Scholar]
  187. Sarkar, A.; Pramanik, K.; Mitra, S.; Soren, T.; Maiti, T.K. Enhancement of growth and salt tolerance of rice seedlings by ACC deaminase-producing Burkholderia sp. MTCC 12259. J. Plant. Physiol. 2018, 231, 434–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Dar, A.I.; Saleem, F.; Ahmad, M.; Tariq, M.; Khan, A.; Ali, A.; Tabassum, B.; Ali, Q.; Khan, G.A.; Rashid, B.; et al. Characterization and efficiency assessment of PGPR for enhancement of rice (Oryza sativa L.) Yield. Av. Life Sci. 2014, 2, 38–45. [Google Scholar]
  189. Yasmin, S.; Zaka, A.; Imran, A.; Zahid, M.A.; Yousaf, S.; Rasul, G.; Arif, M.; Mirza, M.S. Plant growth promotion and suppression of Bacterial Leaf Blight in rice by inoculated bacteria. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0160688. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  190. Chennappa, G.; Naik, M.K.; Adkar-Purushothama, C.R.; Amaresh, Y.S.; Sreenivasa, M.Y. PGP potential, abiotic stress tolerance and antifungal activity of Azotobacter strains isolated from paddy soils. In Indian Journal of Experimental Biology; NISCAIR-CSIR: New Delhi, India, 2016; Volume 54, pp. 322–331. [Google Scholar]
  191. Bal, H.B.; Nayak, L.; Das, S.; Adhya, T.K. Isolation of ACC deaminase producing PGPR from rice rhizosphere and evaluating their plant growth promoting activity under salt stress. Plant. Soil 2013, 366, 93–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. de Souza, R.; Beneduzi, A.; Ambrosini, A.; da Costa, P.B.; Meyer, J.; Vargas, L.K.; Schoenfeld, R.; Passaglia, L.M.P. The effect of plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria on the growth of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cropped in southern brazilian fields. Plant. Soil 2013, 366, 585–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. James, E.K.; Gyaneshwar, P.; Barraquio, W.L.; Mathan, N.; Ladha, J.K. Endophytic diazotrophs associated with rice. In The Quest for Nitrogen Fixation in Rice; International Rice Research Institute: Los Baños, Philippines, 2000; pp. 119–140. [Google Scholar]
  194. Azman, N.A.; Sijam, K.; Hata, E.M.; Othman, R.; Saud, H.M. Screening of bacteria as antagonist against Xanthomonas oryzae pv. oryzae, the causal agent of Bacterial Leaf Blight of paddy and as plant growth promoter. J. Exp. Agric. Int. 2017, 16, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  195. Kumar, U.; Vithal, L.; Annapurna, K. Antagonistic potential and functional diversity of endo and rhizospheric bacteria of Basmati rice. Oryza 2013, 50, 162–168. [Google Scholar]
  196. Singh, D.P.; Singh, H.B.; Prabha, R. Omics-driven approaches in plant-microbe interaction. In Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity; Springer: New Delhi, Delhi India, 2016; pp. 61–84. [Google Scholar]
  197. Rasul, M.; Yasmin, S.; Hakim, S.; Zaheer, A.; Mirza, B.; Mirza, M.S. Metagenomic analysis of bacterial community associated with rhizosphere and phyllosphere of Basmati rice. bioRxiv 2020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Imchen, M.; Kumavath, R.; Vaz, A.B.M.; Góes-Neto, A.; Barh, D.; Ghosh, P.; Kozyrovska, N.; Podolich, O.; Azevedo, V. 16S rRNA gene amplicon based metagenomic signatures of rhizobiome community in rice field during various growth stages. Front. Microbiol. 2019, 10, 2103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Aamir, M.; Rai, K.; Zehra, A.; Dubey, M.K.; Kumar, S.; Shukla, V.; Upadhyay, R.S. Microbial bioformulation-based plant biostimulants: A plausible approach toward next generation of sustainable agriculture. In Microbial Endophytes; Woodhead Publishing: Cambridge, UK, 2020; pp. 195–225. [Google Scholar]
  200. Prathap, M.; Ranjitha Kumari, B.D. Bioformulation in biological control for plant diseases—A review. Int. J. Biotech. Trends Technol. 2017, 7, 1–8. [Google Scholar]
  201. Stojanović, S.S.; Karabegović, I.; Beškoski, V.; Nikolić, N.; Lazić, M. Bacillus based microbial formulations: Optimization of the production process. Hem. Ind. 2019, 73, 169–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  202. Mishra, J.; Arora, N.K. Bioformulations for plant growth promotion and combating phytopathogens: A sustainable approach. In Bioformulations: For Sustainable Agriculture; Springer: New Delhi, Delhi India, 2016; pp. 3–33. [Google Scholar]
  203. Singh, S.; Gupta, G.; Khare, E.; Behal, K.K.; Arora, N.K. Effect of enrichment material on the shelf life and field efficiency of bioformulation of Rhizobium sp. and P-solubilizing Pseudomonas fluorescens. Sci. Res. Report. 2014, 4, 44–50. [Google Scholar]
  204. Ajeng, A.A.; Abdullah, R.; Ling, T.C.; Ismail, S.; Lau, B.F.; Ong, H.C.; Chew, K.W.; Show, P.L.; Chang, J.S. Bioformulation of biochar as a potential inoculant carrier for sustainable agriculture. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2020, 20, 101168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  205. Brahmaprakash, G.P.; Sahu, P.K.; Lavanya, G.; Gupta, A.; Nair, S.S.; Gangaraddi, V. Role of Additives in Improving Efficiency of Bioformulation for Plant Growth and Development. In Frontiers in Soil and Environmental Microbiology; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
  206. Ijaz, M.; Ali, Q.; Ashraf, S.; Kamran, M.; Rehman, A. Development of future bio-formulations for sustainable agriculture. In Microbiome in Plant Health and Disease; Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.: Singapore, 2019; pp. 421–446. [Google Scholar]
  207. Chakraborty, A.P. Carrier based bioformulations of PGPR- characteristics, shelf life and application in improving health status of crop plants—A mini review. Int. J. Res. Rev. 2020, 7, 88–98. [Google Scholar]
  208. Hastuti, R.D.; Lestari, Y.; Saraswati, R.; Suwanto, A. Capability of Streptomyces spp. in controlling Bacterial Leaf Blight disease in rice plants. Am. J. Agric. Biol. Sci. 2012, 7, 217–223. [Google Scholar]
  209. Chakraborty, S.; Tumpa, F.H.; Khokon, M.A.R. Development of formulation of fluorescent pseudomonads and its evaluation on bio-management of blast of rice. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant. Prot. 2020, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  210. Chandra, D.; Sharma, A.K. Field evaluation of consortium of bacterial inoculants producing ACC Deaminase on growth, nutrients and yield components of rice and wheat. J. Crop. Sci. Biotechnol. 2020, 1–13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Fatima, T.; Mishra, I.; Verma, R.; Arora, N.K. Mechanisms of halotolerant plant growth promoting Alcaligenes sp. involved in salt tolerance and enhancement of the growth of rice under salinity stress. 3 Biotech. 2020, 10, 361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Prathuangwong, S.; Chuaboon, W.; Chatnaparat, T.; Kladsuwan, L.; Shoorin, M.; Kasem, S. Induction of disease and drought resistance in rice by Pseudomonas fluorescens SP007s. Chiang Mai Univ. J. Nat. Sci. 2012, 11, 45–56. [Google Scholar]
  213. Kumar, V. Characterization, bio-formulation development and shelf-life studies of locally isolated bio-fertilizer strains. Octa J. Environ. Res. 2014, 2, 32–37. [Google Scholar]
  214. Mącik, M.; Gryta, A.; Frąc, M. Biofertilizers in agriculture: An overview on concepts, strategies and effects on soil microorganisms. In Advances in Agronomy; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2020; Volume 162, pp. 31–87. [Google Scholar]
  215. Uribe, D.; Sánchez-Nieves, J.; Vanegas, J. Role of microbial biofertilizers in the development of a sustainable agriculture in the tropics. In Soil Biology and Agriculture in the Tropics; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2010; pp. 235–250. [Google Scholar]
  216. Paul, N.; Cruz, P.C.; Aguilar, E.A.; Badayos, R.B.; Hafele, S. Evaluation of biofertilizers in cultured rice. J. Biofertil. Biopestic. 2013, 4, 133. [Google Scholar]
  217. Sana, N.; Bajwa, R.; Javaid, A.; Shoaib, A. Effect of biopower application on weed growth and yield of rice. Planta Daninha 2017, 35, e017164872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  218. Soumare, A.; Diedhiou, A.G.; Thuita, M.; Hafidi, M. Exploiting biological nitrogen fixation: A route towards a sustainable agriculture. Plants 2020, 9, 1011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Arora, N.K. Agricultural sustainability and food security. Environ. Sustain. 2018, 1, 217–219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  220. Santos, V.B.; Araújo, A.S.F.; Leite, L.F.C.; Nunes, L.A.P.L.; Melo, W.J. Soil microbial biomass and organic matter fractions during transition from conventional to organic farming systems. Geoderma 2012, 170, 227–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  221. Patra, B.; Singh, J. A review: Usage of biofertilizer in cereal crops. Curr. J. Appl. Sci. Technol. 2019, 36, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  222. Tyagi, S.; Naresh, R.K.; Prakash, S.; Yadav, G.; Tiwari, S.; Rawat, B.; Tiwari, S.; Joshi, A.; Tyagi, A.; Sharma, N. Conservation agriculture, biofertilizers and biopesticides: A holistic approach for agricultural sustainability and food security: A review. Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2019, 7, 3036–3046. [Google Scholar]
  223. Singh, T.B.; Ali, A.; Prasad, M.; Yadav, A.; Shrivastav, P.; Goyal, D.; Dantu, P.K. Role of organic fertilizers in improving soil fertility. In Contaminants in Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2020; pp. 61–77. [Google Scholar]
  224. Gopalakrishnan, S.; Sathya, A.; Rajendran Vijayabharathi, R.; Srinivas, V. Formulations of plant growth- promoting microbes for field applications. In Microbial Inoculants in Sustainable Agricultural Productivity; Springer: New Delhi, India, 2016; pp. 239–251. [Google Scholar]
  225. FAO. Guidelines for the Export, Shipment, Import and Release of Biological Control Agents and Other Beneficial Organisms (International Standard for Phutosanitary Measures No. 3), 2nd ed.; FAO: Rome, Italy, 2005.
  226. Kang, Y.; Shen, M.; Xia, D.; Ye, K.; Zhao, Q.; Hu, J. Caution of Intensified spread of antibiotic resistance genes by inadvertent introduction of beneficial bacteria into soil. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B Soil Plant. Sci. 2017, 67, 576–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  227. Mouhamad, R.S.; Alabboud, M. Plant growth-promoting bacteria as a natural resource for sustainable rice production under the soil salinity, wastewater, and heavy metal stress. In Plant Stress Physiology; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2020. [Google Scholar]
  228. Fernando, W.D.; Nakkeeran, S.; Zhang, Y. Biosynthesis of antibiotics by PGPR and its relation in biocontrol of plant diseases. In PGPR: Biocontrol and Biofertilization; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 67–109. [Google Scholar]
  229. Kenawy, A.; Dailin, D.J.; Abo-Zaid, G.A.; Abd Malek, R.; Ambehabati, K.K.; Zakaria, K.H.N.; Sayyed, R.Z.; El Enshasy, H.A. Biosynthesis of antibiotics by PGPR and their roles in biocontrol of plant diseases. In Plant Growth Promoting Rhizobacteria for Sustainable Stress Management; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 1–35. [Google Scholar]
  230. Misra, B.B.; Langefeld, C.; Olivier, M.; Cox, L.A. Integrated omics: Tools, advances and future approaches. J. Mol. Endocrinol. 2019, 62, R21–R45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  231. Park, S.J.; Onizuka, S.; Seki, M.; Suzuki, Y.; Iwata, T.; Nakai, K. A systematic sequencing-based approach for microbial contaminant detection and functional inference. BMC Biol. 2019, 17, 72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
Figure 1. Biological control interactions exerted by the plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB). This illustration depicts the interactions between PGPB, phytopathogens, and plants. PGPB promote plant growth either by direct and or indirect mechanisms. PGPB colonize plant’s rhizosphere and produce antimicrobial metabolites. In the plant’s rhizosphere, antibiosis and nutrient competition interaction suppresses the growth of phytopathogens. Elicitors of induced systemic resistance (ISR) production by PGPB and in the simultaneous presence of phytopathogens enhanced the plant ISR. Thus, this mediated defense response of plants towards phytopathogens and consequently enhanced plant growth and health.
Figure 1. Biological control interactions exerted by the plant growth-promoting bacteria (PGPB). This illustration depicts the interactions between PGPB, phytopathogens, and plants. PGPB promote plant growth either by direct and or indirect mechanisms. PGPB colonize plant’s rhizosphere and produce antimicrobial metabolites. In the plant’s rhizosphere, antibiosis and nutrient competition interaction suppresses the growth of phytopathogens. Elicitors of induced systemic resistance (ISR) production by PGPB and in the simultaneous presence of phytopathogens enhanced the plant ISR. Thus, this mediated defense response of plants towards phytopathogens and consequently enhanced plant growth and health.
Microorganisms 09 00682 g001
Table 2. In vitro characterizations of promising PGPB.
Table 2. In vitro characterizations of promising PGPB.
MechanismsMediaDescriptionsReferences
Direct
Nitrogen fixationNitrogen-free (NF) agarNitrogen fixation was observed qualitatively by the blue coloration around the colonies[80]
Malate (NFM) semisolid mediumAcetylene production was quantified on a gas chromatograph equipped with a Porapak Q column and a H2-flame ionization detector (FID)[81,82]
Phosphate solubilizationPikovskaya’s agarPhosphate solubilization was determined qualitatively by the formation of halo zones around the colonies[83]
Siderophore productionChrome azurol S (CAS) agarSiderophore production was observed qualitatively by the yellow halo coloration around the colonies[84]
Phytohormones productionIAANutrient broth medium supplemented with L- tryptophanIAA production was determined using colorimetric methods and quantified on HPLC using ethyl acetate oxidation method[85,86,87]
CytokininsBurk’s mediumCytokinin production was determined using colorimetric methods[88,89]
GibberellinsNutrient broth mediumGibberellin production was determined using colorimetric methods[90]
Indirect
ACC deaminase productionDworkin and Foster’s (DF) salts mediumColonies growing on the DF agar were taken as ACC deaminase producers and ACC deaminase activity was determined using colorimetric method[91,92]
HCN productionNutrient broth supplemented with 4.4 g/L of glycineHCN production was observed qualitatively by the changes in the filter paper color from yellow to orange-brown[93,94]
Antibiotics productionMueller Hinton (MH) mediumScreening of antimicrobial activity was observed using diffusion methods[95,96]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ngalimat, M.S.; Mohd Hata, E.; Zulperi, D.; Ismail, S.I.; Ismail, M.R.; Mohd Zainudin, N.A.I.; Saidi, N.B.; Yusof, M.T. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Emerging Tool to Manage Bacterial Rice Pathogens. Microorganisms 2021, 9, 682. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040682

AMA Style

Ngalimat MS, Mohd Hata E, Zulperi D, Ismail SI, Ismail MR, Mohd Zainudin NAI, Saidi NB, Yusof MT. Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Emerging Tool to Manage Bacterial Rice Pathogens. Microorganisms. 2021; 9(4):682. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040682

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ngalimat, Mohamad Syazwan, Erneeza Mohd Hata, Dzarifah Zulperi, Siti Izera Ismail, Mohd Razi Ismail, Nur Ain Izzati Mohd Zainudin, Noor Baity Saidi, and Mohd Termizi Yusof. 2021. "Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as an Emerging Tool to Manage Bacterial Rice Pathogens" Microorganisms 9, no. 4: 682. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms9040682

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