International Research Journals
Reach Us +44 330 818 7254

Review Article - International Research Journal of Microbiology ( 2023) Volume 12, Issue 3

Bacterial Endophytes as a Bacterial Growth Induction

Arein Hogton*
Department of Microbiology, University of Lund, Japan
*Corresponding Author:
Arein Hogton, Department of Microbiology, University of Lund, Japan, Email:

Received: 01-May-2023, Manuscript No. IRJM-23-98245; Editor assigned: 03-May-2023, Pre QC No. IRJM-23-98245 (PQ); Reviewed: 17-May-2023, QC No. IRJM-23-98245; Revised: 19-May-2023, Manuscript No. IRJM-23-98245 (R); Published: 26-May-2023, DOI: 10.14303/2141-5463.2023.40


The internal tissues of plants are colonized by bacterial endophytes, which can be found in nearly every plant in the world. Plant growth can be aided by some endophytes. For those strains the mechanisms of plant development dvancement known to be utilized by bacterial endophytes are like the instruments utilized by rhizospheric microbes, e.g., the obtaining of assets required for plant development and adjustment of plant development and improvement. Endophytic plant growth-promoting bacteria, like rhizospheric plant growth-promoting bacteria, can help plants grow in agriculture, horticulture, and silviculture, as well as in phytoremediation (cleanup strategies for the environment). The beginnings of genome comparisons between bacterial endophytes and rhizospheric plant growth-promoting bacteria are revealing potential genetic factors associated with an endophytic lifestyle. This should make it easier to comprehend how bacterial endophytes function.


Endophytes, Rhizospheric, Silviculture, Phytoremidation

INTRODUCTION Plant-microbes affiliations have been read up for a long time. However, a complete comprehension of the mechanisms utilized by plant growth-promoting bacteria had remained elusive; making it frequently challenging to take full advantage of it is currently known that bacteria can have a beneficial effect on plant growth and health, and that plants can "select" their microbiome to have beneficial bacterial colonizers, including those that live within the plant tissues (Bonafante P, 2009).

A functional definition of endophytic behavior has been proposed by some authors that considers any bacterium to be an endophyte if it can be isolated from surfacedisinfested plant tissue or extracted from within the plant and does not cause visible damage to the plant. What appears to be clear is that bacterial endophytes can offer a few advantages to the host plant, especially development supportive of movement and insurance from microbes; and that bacterial endophytes are able to communicate with the plant and interact with it more effectively than rhizospheric bacteria under a variety of environmental conditions. To colonize the interior plant tissues, it has been suggested that bacterial endophytes have genomic contrasts contrasted with rhizosphere colonizing microscopic organisms, albeit up to this point no authoritative gathering of qualities has been recognized that is answerable for the endophytic way of life. However, a list of genes that may be involved in endophytic behavior by looking at the total genomes of nine Proteobacterial endophytes. Endophytic colonization has only been experimentally demonstrated to involve a small number of these genes at this point (Chen C, 1995) (Frommel MI, 1991).

Endophytic way of life: from the rhizosphere to the plant's tissues inside

Bacterial endophytes may enjoy an upper hand over microbes occupying the rhizosphere, since living inside a plant's tissues rephates an amazing chance to continuously be in ̈contact with the plant's cells and in this way, to all the more promptly apply a direct gainful impact. Obviously, microscopic organisms living in the rhizosphere could likewise have the possibility to enter and colonize the plant roots. One of the primary sources of endophytic colonization, Endophytic, truth be told bacterial variety can be viewed as a subset of the rhizosphere as well as rootrelated bacterial populace. Microorganisms face intense competition in the rhizosphere to occupy space and obtain nutrients. In this manner, those life forms, by the same token possibly useful or pathogenic, that is profoundly serious in colonizing plant tissues and getting supplements, will multiply in this microenvironment and conceivably affect plant development and advance (Haas D, 2003). Because they are able to interact very effectively with their plant hosts, it has been hypothesized that bacterial endophytes are one step removed from the specialized living bacteria that live in the rhizosphere. As a result, endophytes use a variety of entry methods into plant tissues, particularly the roots. Except for seed-endophytes that are already established, primary and lateral root cracks and various tissue wounds caused by plant growth are the most common entry points for endophytic bacteria into plant tissue. Since root wounds permit the spillage of plant metabolites, they become destinations that draw in microbes (Kong Z, 2015) (Shi Y, 2014).

Mechanism of Endophytic bacteria in plant growth

The mechanisms by which soil bacteria facilitate plant growth are fairly well understood. Conceptually, PGPB may have a direct or indirect effect on plant growth. When either (i) the PGPB makes it easier for plants to acquire resources from the environment like nitrogen, phosphorus, and iron; or (ii) or on the other hand (ii) regulates plant development by giving or managing different plant chemicals including auxin, cytokinin or ethylene. When a bacterium limits or prevents damage to plants that might otherwise be caused by various pathogenic agents, such as bacteria, fungi, and nematodes, it is known as indirect promotion of plant growth by PGPB (Timmusk S et al., 2011).

Two general kinds of soil microbes have been displayed to have the ability to go about as PGPB; rhizospheric bacteria, which are typically found in and around plants' roots; and endophytic bacteria, which are found in the plant's tissues . Generally, rhizospheric and endophytic PGPB use comparable, if not indistinguishable, instruments to advance plant development. The primary distinction lies in the fact that endophytic PGPB are no longer affected by shifting soil conditions once they have established themselves within the host plant's tissues. These evolving conditions, which might repress the working and multiplication of rhizospheric PGPB, incorporate variations in temperature, soil pH and water content, and the presence of soil microorganisms that might go after restricting locales on, have plant root surfaces. Strangely, by far most of investigations of the components utilized by PGPB have involved rhizospheric microscopic organisms. On the other hand, a large portion of the investigations coordinated toward using PGPB as a feature of a supportive of protocol, along with plants, to eliminate explicit pollutants from the climate have utilized endophytic PGPB. The disparity between the use of endophytic PGPB and rhizospheric PGPB by one group of scientists does not appear to have any scientific basis. Instead, each group focused on research with the organisms they were most familiar with. Since it is now quite clear that these organisms use basically the same mechanisms to help plants grow, it makes sense to purposefully use endophytic PGPB to help plants grow in agriculture, horticulture, and silviculture, as well as to clean up the environment, because they are much more likely to stay in the environment (Rheinhold Hurek B, 2006).

Variations of bacterial endophytes

The vast majority of the planet's approximately 300,000 plant species are thought to contain endophytes, according to recent estimates. In fact, all of the analyzed plant species contain microbial endophytes (bacteria and fungi). An endophyte free plant is one of very little natural exception. In view of perceptions of the conveyance of rhizospheric PGPB in nature a plant devoid of endophytes would be less able to handle pathogens and more vulnerable to stressors in the environment (Agarwhal S, 1987).

Endophyte diversity has been the subject of relatively few studies that have examined the effects of various environmental variables. This is reported that the influence of phytoplasma infection and the seasons on the diversity of bacterial endophytes in grape plants. Using lengthheterogeneity PCR, genus-specific PCR, and taxon-specific real-time PCR, these researchers looked for bacterial endophytes in spontaneously recovering healthy grape plants. These researchers found biocontrol strains of the bacterial genera Burkholderia, Methylobacterium, Sphingomonas, and Pantoea, all of which were previously linked to the phytoplasma infection process, in grapevines (Agarwhal S, 1987).

Assisted Phytoremidation

Some species of plants can thrive in contaminated soils. The plants contain a few hereditary/physiological systems to manage different soil contaminations, including those got from human-centric exercises. The recruitment of bacterial endophytes is an important plant mechanism in phytoremediation. More importantly, some bacterial endophytes that are able to withstand or tolerate high concentrations of pollutants also have characteristics that encourage plant growth. Five isolates from the Zn/ Cd hyperaccumulator plant Sedum plumbizincicola that exhibited PGPB activities were selected for further investigation in a recent study (Bashan Y, 1995).

Siderophore synthesis, indole-3-acetic acid production, ACC deaminase activity, and phosphorus solubilization were among these activities. Additionally, the strains demonstrated a high level of resistance to growth inhibition caused by heavy metals like Cd, Zn, and Pb. The impacts of vaccinating these metal-safe ACC-using strains on the development of S. plumbizincicola and its take-up of Album, Zn and Pb in multi-metal defiled soils were likewise assessed in pot tests. One specific strain, Bacillus pumilus strain E2S2 altogether expanded the plant's Album take-up, and expanded the plant root and shoot length, as well as new and dry biomass compared with non-vaccinated plants. As a result, S. lumbizincicola's endophytic bacteria improved its phytoextraction capacity while also encouraging plant growth. Recently It is examined the effect of copper stress on the plant Medicago lupulina of the rhizobial endosymbiont Sinorhizobium meliloti strain. This strain expanded both plant development and nitrogen content. Additionally, the rhizobial symbiosis helped plant shoots and roots accumulate Cu. In addition, plants treated with the bacterium showed upregulation of several antioxidant response-related genes in the presence of high Cu concentrations. Consequently, under Cu stress, the symbiosis with S. meliloti induced the plant's antioxidative defense responses in addition to enhancing growth and metal uptake (Bashan Y, 1995).


By far most of the planet's roughly 300,000 plant species are remembered to contain endophytes, as per ongoing appraisals. In fact, microbial endophytes (bacteria and fungi) are found in every species of plant examined. A without endophyte plant is a very rare example of regular exemption. In light of perceptions of the natural transmission of rhizospheric PGPB, a plant without endophytes would be less able to deal with pathogens and more susceptible to environmental stressors. Only a small number of studies have looked at how various environmental factors affect endophyte diversity. Nonetheless, in grape plants, phytoplasma infection and the seasons affect the diversity of bacterial endophytes. These researchers searched for bacterial endophytes in naturally recovering healthy grape plants using length-heterogeneity PCR, genus-specific PCR, and taxon-specific real-time PCR. These analysts found biocontrol kinds of the bacterial genera Burkholderia, Methylobacterium, Sphingomonas, and Pantoea, which were all recently connected to the phytoplasma contamination process, in grapevines.


  1. Bonafante P, Anca IA (2009). Plants, mycorrhizal fungi, and bacteria: a network of interactions. Annu Rev Microbiol. 63: 363-383.
  2. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  3. Chen C, Bauske EM, Musson G, Rodriguez Kibana R, Kloepper JW (1995). Biological control of Fusarium wilts on cotton by use of endophytic bacteria. Biol Control. 5: 83-91.
  4. Google Scholar

  5. Frommel MI, Nowak J, Lazarovits G (1991). Growth enhancement and developmental modifications of in vitro grown potato (Solanum tuberosum ssp.tuberosum) as affected by a nonfluorescent Pseudomonas sp. Plant Physiol. 96: 928-936.
  6. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  7. Haas D, Keel C(2003). Regulation of antibiotic production in root-colonizing Pseudomonas spp: and relevance for biological control of plant disease. Ann Rev Phytopathol. 41: 117-153.
  8. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  9. Kong Z, Mohamad OA, Deng Z, Liu X, Glick BR, et al ( 2015). Rhizobial symbiosis effect on the growth, metal uptake, and antioxidant responses of Medicago lupulina under copper stress. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 22: 12479-12489.
  10. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  11. Shi Y, Yang H, Zhang T, Sun J, Lou K (2014). Illumina-based analysis of endophytic bacterial diversity and space-time dynamics in sugar beet on thenorth slope of Tianshan Mountain. Appl Microbiol Biotechnol. 98: 6375-6385.
  12. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  13. Timmusk S, Paalme V, Pavlicek T, Bergquist J, Vangala A, et al. (2011). Bacterial distribution in the rhizosphere of wild barley under contrasting microclimates. PLoS One. 6: e17968.
  14. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  15. Rheinhold Hurek B, Maes T, Gemmer S, Van Montagu, Hurek TM (2006). An endoglucanase is involved in infection of rice roots by the not-cellulose-metabolizing endophyte Azoarcus sp. strain BH72. Molec Plant Microbe Interact. 19: 181-188.
  16. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar

  17. Agarwhal S, Shende ST (1987). Tetrazolium reducing microorganisms inside the root of Brassica species. Curr Sci. 56: 187-188.
  18.  Google Scholar

  19. Bashan Y, Holguin G (1995). Root-to-root travel of the beneficial bacterium Azospirillum brasilense. Appl Environ Microbiol. 60: 2120-2131.
  20. Indexed at, Crossref, Google Scholar