- Review
- Open access
- Published:
Life on a leaf: the epiphyte to pathogen continuum and interplay in the phyllosphere
BMC Biology volume 22, Article number: 168 (2024)
Abstract
Epiphytic microbes are those that live for some or all of their life cycle on the surface of plant leaves. Leaf surfaces are a topologically complex, physicochemically heterogeneous habitat that is home to extensive, mixed communities of resident and transient inhabitants from all three domains of life. In this review, we discuss the origins of leaf surface microbes and how different biotic and abiotic factors shape their communities. We discuss the leaf surface as a habitat and microbial adaptations which allow some species to thrive there, with particular emphasis on microbes that occupy the continuum between epiphytic specialists and phytopathogens, groups which have considerable overlap in terms of adapting to the leaf surface and between which a single virulence determinant can move a microbial strain. Finally, we discuss the recent findings that the wheat pathogenic fungus Zymoseptoria tritici spends a considerable amount of time on the leaf surface, and ask what insights other epiphytic organisms might provide into this pathogen, as well as how Z. tritici might serve as a model system for investigating plant–microbe-microbe interactions on the leaf surface.
Introduction
The relationship between plants and microbes is a multifaceted one. Plant–microbe interactions reach our attention most effectively when they are negative—for example, when crop diseases threaten harvests and livelihoods, or when epidemics such as chestnut blight or ash dieback cause unmissable alterations to landscapes and ecosystems [1, 2]. However, microbes are ubiquitous in natural environments, as components of soil [3,4,5,6,7], in water [8, 9] and even as bioaerosols [10, 11]; they are also key mediators of earth system processes such as the carbon, nitrogen and water cycles [11,12,13,14,15]. As a result, plants constantly encounter a diverse array of microbes across all three domains of life, and yet the vast majority of these interactions do not result in disease. Some plant–microbe interactions are symbiotic, and, again, we notice those where the plant benefits from the presence of the microbe. These include the closely co-evolved partnerships between plants and mycorrhizal fungi or nitrogen-fixing bacteria [16,17,18]. However, plants are populated by a whole microbiome of more loosely associated microbes [19, 20] and are further influenced by the community of microbes inhabiting that portion of the soil close to and affected by the plant roots (the rhizosphere) [21, 22]. These microbes influence the plant in a range of ways. Particularly well-studied examples include the plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and endophytic fungi; both of which are implicated in disease and stress resistance, crop yield, nutrient acquisition, flowering time and even plant species’ ranges [23,24,25]. Beyond this, research efforts over several decades have revealed many layers of interdependence between plants and their associated microbes, to the extent that the collective term ‘holobiont’ has been applied to the host plant and its microbiome [24, 26,27,28]. Plants present various microbial niches [29,30,31,32], collectively termed the rhizosphere (below ground) and phyllosphere (above ground). The phyllosphere includes the phyllo-endosphere and the phylloplane (surfaces of e.g. leaves, stem, flowers, fruits and seeds) [33]. Each niche hosts microbial mutualists, commensals and pathogens, facilitating a range of microbe-microbe and microbe-microbe-plant interactions [34,35,36]. Plants influence microbial communities in a species- and genotype-dependent manner, via secondary metabolites, exudates and immune responses, all of which vary with developmental stage, plant compartment and biotic interactions [31, 35, 37,38,39,40,41,42].
The phyllosphere microbiome has historically been neglected by researchers, who have focused on the soil and rhizosphere microbiomes, but it is now appreciated that the phyllosphere represents the largest terrestrial microbial habitat on Earth [43, 44] and must be studied for full understanding of global microbial ecology and even earth systems, in addition to the more obvious research areas around plant health. The combined surface area of the phyllosphere hosts in the region of 1026 bacteria, plus yeasts, filamentous fungi, algae, viruses and protists [45,46,47,48]. Further, the phyllosphere represents a hotspot for microbial evolution and genetic exchange [49,50,51,52] and is a significant source of microbes in other environments, including soil, water and atmosphere, with roles in the major earth cycles. This review will therefore focus on phyllosphere microbes. Bacterial communities are the best studied in this niche; here, we will consider them alongside fungal communities and discuss the ways in which current knowledge of the factors that shape bacterial communities on leaves, and their relationships with plant host, might be extrapolated to fungal communities, including their relationships with the host and with bacterial communities. We will consider the wheat pathogenic fungus, Zymoseptoria tritici, as a case study, discussing the importance of its epiphytic growth phase and potential interactions with phyllosphere microbiota.
Reaching the leaf surface
Immigration of epiphytic microbes into the phyllosphere is either seed-mediated—known for some fungi, bacteria and viruses [44, 53,54,55], or environmental—from soil, air movement, or rain-splash, which can transmit microbes from soil and from neighbouring plants [45, 56,57,58]. Seed-mediated colonisation gives access to host tissues from the outset of the plants’ life, providing scope for long-term co-evolution between microbes and their hosts [44, 59]. Acorns, for example, contain a diverse community of microbes whose spatial distribution facilitates non-random transmission to the rhizo- and phyllospheres, and the seedling phyllosphere closely resembles this acorn microbiome [60]. However, the importance of the seed-borne microbiome falls as the plants mature [55, 60]. A field study which combined carefully controlled plant age and development with microbiome transplant experiments demonstrated that neighbouring plants significantly affect epiphytic bacterial community composition [41]. In other field studies, episodes of heavy rain or strong winds were found to alter the microbial communities on leaves, as did irrigation [46, 61, 62]. Bacteria enter the atmosphere from leaf surfaces and cryptogamic coverings of rocks and soils [10, 11, 48] and are able to survive in the boundary layer and travel widely, even between continents [10, 11], as can spores of some fungi—a factor in outbreaks of the globally emerging, aggressive strain of the wheat rust fungus Puccinia graminis (Ug99) [63,64,65] and of the pan-European spread of the ash dieback fungus, Hymenoscyphus fraxineus [1, 64, 66]. Although estimates vary widely and are dependent upon vegetation type and climatic factors, a flux of around 100 bacteria and fungal spores entering the atmosphere every second for every square meter of land is an accepted approximation [10]. In one study, 7% of the bacteria on spinach leaves belonged to the genus Massilia, a common airborne bacterium [11, 67]; while this alone is not proof of the route by which these bacteria populated the leaf surface, it supports the idea that airborne inoculum contributes to epiphytic communities. Thus, the leaf surface microbiome will be influenced by many factors, including both local and global microbe pools and weather conditions, as well as host factors like species and genotype.
Leaf surface community assembly, development and structure
Once on the leaf surface, microbes are exposed to many stressors [45, 68,69,70,71,72]. Leaves are light-harvesting organs, so exposure to ultraviolet radiation is inevitable, although fluxes change rapidly, as do associated environmental factors such as temperature and humidity [36]. In addition, plant defences activation may lead to reactive oxygen (ROS) stress [45, 71, 73]. The leaf surface is also believed to be an oligotrophic environment where access to carbon, nitrogen and micronutrients may be growth-limiting and subject to competition from other resident microbes [74,75,76,77], as suggested by an over-representation of genes related to aerobic anoxygenic phototrophy in some epiphytic bacterial communities [76]. Phylloplane microbes must also contend with a multitude of anthropogenic chemical inputs from agricultural practices (fertilisers, pesticides and pollution) [78, 79]. The phylloplane is a dynamic environment [80] and microbes can persist only if they are adapted to its challenges.
Leaf surface microbiomes differ from those in the surrounding soil and rhizosphere of the same plants, suggesting that the leaf surface is a selective environment [48, 49, 71, 73, 81]. Bacterial communities are generally dominated by four phyla—Proteobacteria, Firmicutes, Actinobacteria and Bacteroides [46, 76, 82], a pattern that has been shown to hold true across monocots including wheat, rice and switchgrass [54, 82], annual dicots such as Arabidopsis, clover, lettuce and spinach [67, 82,83,84], perennials including coffee [85] and various tree species [68, 86,87,88], as well as across temperate, Mediterranean and tropical climate zones [68, 89]. Fungi are often described as transient or ephemeral on leaf surfaces and only present as spores [71, 90], but this overlooks a rich community of largely basidiomycete yeasts, which, like their bacterial neighbours, are generally represented by a subset of possible classes—especially Cystobasidiomycetes, Tremellomycetes, Microbotryomycetes and Uridinomcyetes including Cryptococcus, Sporobolomyces and Rhodotorula [45, 48, 54, 91,92,93,94,95]. Epiphytic yeast populations are estimated to reach around 105 cfu per gram of leaf and are understudied, with recent studies uncovering new species, genera, families and even orders [95,96,97,98] and demonstrating significant interactions with other microbes, including plant pathogens [99]. A few classes of largely ascomycete dimorphic and filamentous fungi are also frequent members of epiphytic communities—especially Leotiomycetes, Dothideomycetes and Sordariomycetes [45, 48, 54]. Notable epiphytic genera and species include the bacteria Pseudomonas, Methylobacterium and Sphingomonas [32, 45, 48, 100], the yeast Aureobasidium pullulans [45, 90] and filamentous fungi Acremonium, Alternaria, Aspergillus, Cladosporium, Mucor and Penicillium [45, 54, 90].
Leaf surface microbiomes are less diverse than bioaerosols or soil microbiota [11, 101,102,103]. Hypotheses concerning the factors most important in shaping them include dynamic exchange with other niches, selection for abiotic stress tolerance, or microbe selection by the plant. It is argued that the similarity of microbial communities across a wide range of plants and habitats is an indication that plants actively recruit and maintain their epiphytic microbiota [54]. This idea is supported by evidence that microbial communities depend on host species and genotype [43], and that as leaves age, their microbiome loses diversity, suggesting that specific microbial genotypes are selected on the leaf [38, 104, 105]. Possible mechanisms for recruitment and selection by the plant include chemical profiles of leaf waxes, exudates and volatiles [43, 106, 107] as well as physical properties [43]. Plant immune responses may also play a role, since immune mutants of Arabidopsis exhibited altered phyllosphere microbiomes [73]. There is also evidence that plants under stress use a chemical ‘cry for help’ to recruit beneficial microbes [34, 108]. Set against the idea the microbiomes are determined by their hosts, however, is evidence for geographical endemism, particularly in fungal epiphytes [45], and for the importance of neighbouring plants and seasonal succession in shaping leaf surface microbiomes [41, 56, 58, 103, 109, 110], although it should be noted that leaf properties themselves change seasonally and according to plant development and age [37, 111,112,113].
Guo et al. [42] assessed the impact of host species, host genotype, host niche and the abiotic factor of water stress on the fungal microbiome of wheat (Triticum aestivum) and oat (Avena sativa). They reported that host niche had the greatest overall impact on community dynamics, but host genotype and water stress have significant effects on the community structure within niches. Using source-tracing analysis, the authors unsurprisingly identified soil as the source of fungal root communities, but were unable to identify the source of over half of leaf fungi; further, less than 10% of leaf epiphytes were found in other host niches [42]. This study therefore supports the concept that the open nature of the phylloplane is an important factor in microbiome assembly [44].
Xiong et al. [37] made innovative use of artificial leaves to capture the airborne microbes in the local environment of maize plants. This demonstrated an ongoing airborne contribution to phylloplane diversity [37]. However, host developmental stage was found to be the strongest determinant of maize microbiome community composition [37]. Plant developmental stage affects metabolism, leaf exudation, leaf surface physicochemical properties and immune traits, all of which are likely to influence the recruitment and survival of microbes [37, 114,115,116,117,118]. Interestingly, Xiong et al. showed that bacterial soil communities supported plant health and nitrogen uptake in young maize, while fungal roles in soil carbon and phosphorous cycling were seen later in plant development [37]. This could be interpreted as evidence for host-mediated microbiome modulation, a long-proposed mechanism for which evidence has been steadily building [29, 119,120,121,122,123]. It is possible that such mechanisms may also influence leaf surface populations. Factors that shape the leaf surface microbiome are summarised in Fig. 1.
The leaf surface habitat
The apparently hostile, oligotrophic leaf surface environment is not homogeneous, either physically or chemically. Leaf surfaces are three dimensional and present heterogeneous microhabitats at the microbial scale. This ‘landscape’ is covered by a cuticle that itself comprises crystalline wax structures, which vary with plant species, genotype and development [104]. Leaf macroscopic features such as veins also create an intricate topography [32, 45, 124]. At the microscopic scale, the depressions over the anticlinal cells walls are an important feature which patterns the leaf surface with a network of grooves [32, 45, 125]. There are also additional cell types, including trichomes and the guard cell complexes that surround stomatal apertures. A number of studies have demonstrated that the leaf surface is as heterogeneous in chemical factors, including water and nutrient availability, as it is non-uniform in shape [43, 126,127,128]. Some of the most elegant of these have used bacterial epiphytes as bioreporters, created detailed topographic leaf surface replicas and/or utilised cutting-edge single-cell imaging techniques, allowing the heterogeneity of the environment to be understood at the scale experienced by the microbial inhabitants [32, 129,130,131,132]. Reporters have been used to gain insights into the spatial heterogeneity of sugars, phenolics and water on the leaf surface [124]. Carbon, present heterogeneously on the leaf surface as carbohydrates, amino acids, organic acids and sugar alcohols, is the most limiting factor to epiphytic growth [47]. Simple sugars, thought to leach directly from the leaf interior, are the dominant carbon source on leaf surfaces. These remain detectable in the leaf washings of heavily colonised plants, indicating that not all soluble sugars are accessible to microbes in situ [104, 133, 134]. A sucrose/fructose responsive GFP-based reporter in Erwinia herbicola revealed much spatial heterogeneity in these sugars on bean leaves [135], while a fructose utilisation bioreporter based on a short half-life GFP showed that most bacterial cells had exhausted the available fructose within 24 h of inoculation [126]. However, a subset of leaf surface locations supported much longer-term fructose usage, suggesting that those specific areas had much more of the sugar present [126]. A GFP-based biosensor for iron constructed in Pseudomonas syringae suggested that bioavailable iron was also heterogeneously distributed, but that many epiphytic bacterial cells did not experience iron limitation [136].
Water availability is also heterogenous and influences the distribution of any dissolved solutes. Free water on the leaf surface is essential for the survival, growth and activity of phyllospheric microorganisms, allowing them to move, communicate and acquire nutrients [70, 137,138,139]. Water vapour escaping from stomata may create a very thin, laminar water layer over the leaf surface, reducing water stress for epiphytes [104]. The collective body of water on the leaf surface is known as the phytotelma [32, 137]; its size, spread and connectivity are influenced by precipitation, irrigation, condensation, transpiration, guttation and evaporation [32]. Water stress varies across the leaf surface, as water droplets may dry out and shrink, while the structures and topography of the leaf will influence water ingress and retention [32, 140].
Doan et al. [32] used PDMS leaf replicasts to study water distribution on leaves that had been dipped or sprayed. They used a combination of electron microscopy and solute biosensing bacteria to show that water retention is associated with venation and trichomes, and that the diffusion of solutes across a leaf surface preferentially occurs in the direction of the ribs in the leaf created by veins. Bacteria survived better on surfaces whose topography allowed greater water retention, and their physical clustering in the grooves along veins and over anticlinal cell walls, as well as at the base of trichomes, might be explicable solely through the physical effect of these structures on water distribution [32]. A water bioreporter constructed in three bacterial species (Escherichia coli, Pantoea agglomerans and Pseudomonas syringae) showed water stress began to affect cells within 5 min of inoculation onto bean leaves, but also that cells did not experience water stress as extreme as predicted by published psychrometer readings of leaf water potential, suggesting the existence of microhabitats protected from drying [140]. Bacterial cells also respond to water stress, often showing cross-protection with other stressors [141] or the adoption of the resilient ‘persistor’ metabolic state [142].
The chemistry and structure of the cuticle is also an important factor in determining water distribution on the leaf surface. Cuticle permeability is important in epiphyte survival and growth, since it provides water and solutes to the leaf surface [124]. Cuticles are composed of cutin—a polymer of cross-linked hydroxyl fatty acids—and waxes; they are not impermeable to water, as single molecules of water may interact with polar components to pass through the cuticle matrix [143]. While permeation is slow and does not carry solutes across the cuticle, aqueous pores, formed from clusters of polar molecules, exist within plant cuticles and are important for the exudation of nutrients from inside the leaf [48, 124, 143]. Uptake and accumulation of the dye berberine sulphite has been used to visualise the movement of water through plant cuticles [143]. The dye was detected first at the cuticular ledges of stomatal guard cells, and then appeared at anticlinal cell walls, trichomes and over veins [143]. Notably, these areas of higher permeability are also the sites on leaves at which highest microbial densities are found [70, 124, 143].
Microbial adaptation to the leaf surface
Epiphytes must either tolerate the abiotic stresses associated with the leaf surface or mitigate them through their own actions. For this reason, successful epiphytic microbes must adopt a range of strategies to find or create microhabitats that are protected from abiotic stress [138], including manipulation of their host to modify their environment [144]. The ability to navigate to, and remain in, those niches within the leaf surface that are richest in nutrients and available water is key to epiphytic survival of both bacteria and fungi. Bacterial cells are motile and can move towards favourable locations by chemotaxis following detection of nutrients or signals [42, 68, 90, 145, 146]. Motility is also necessary for virulence in bacterial phytopathogens which invade from the surface, such as Ralstonia, Dickeya and Xanthomonas [48, 90, 147]. Fungal spores are non-motile, but hyphae navigate the leaf surface using polar growth [148,149,150] which may be directed chemotactically or thigmotrophically [151, 152], allowing them to seek out nutrients and respond to the leaf topography [153, 154]. Movement to the most sheltered and nutrient-dense areas of the leaf where survival and reproduction are highest causes aggregation, with most of the microbes on a leaf surface occurring in aggregates of 1000 cells [47, 155]. Solitary bacteria do occur on leaves in large numbers, but the sheer size of some aggregates means that they may represent as much as 80% of the leaf surface bacteria [104]. These aggregates are often mixed species, including both bacteria and fungi [104, 156, 157].
To survive the abiotic stresses on the leaf surface, many microbes form biofilms. A biofilm may be defined as an aggregation of cells, attached to a surface and embedded in an extra-cellular matrix (ECM) [158,159,160,161,162,163,164,165,166]. In bacteria, the ECM is usually composed of extracellular polysaccharides (EPS) [54, 90, 167, 168]. Biofilms are resistant to desiccation [103, 145, 169, 170], antimicrobials [104, 171,172,173,174,175] and reactive oxygen species, which are important plant defences [176, 177]. Biofilms can also be formed by yeasts and filamentous fungi [178,179,180,181,182,183], including a number of plant pathogens [177, 184,185,186]. Generally, the mechanisms of stress resistance in biofilms are not fully elucidated, but a number of factors are known to contribute, including the expression of efflux pumps for toxins/antimicrobials; the action of the ECM in limiting diffusion of stressor chemicals towards cells and in limiting water loss; the presence of persistor cells within biofilms, and, more broadly, metabolic and transcriptomic heterogeneity among the cells within biofilms [177, 187,188,189,190,191,192]. For fungal biofilms increased resistance to a number of stresses, such as antifungals, ROS and UV, is documented, and mechanisms proposed are similar to those seen in bacterial biofilms, with ECM components such as beta-glucans and eDNA thought to contribute along with cell–cell heterogeneity in metabolic state, induced by differential resource availability across the biofilm [173, 192,193,194,195,196]. Multi-species and even cross-kingdom biofilms, in which the ECM is derived from both fungal and bacterial secretions, are known and likely the norm on the leaf surface [90, 197,198,199,200,201]. As with single species biofilms, stress resistance is enhanced by a range of mechanisms in these mixed biofilms. The physical proximity of various microbial species in a stressful environment underpins a high rate of horizontal gene transfer (HGT), for which the phyllosphere is a known hotspot, particularly for plasmid and gene cassette exchange, although the mechanisms underpinning increased HGT in the phyllosphere are not completely understood at present [202,203,204,205,206,207,208].
Many epiphytic bacteria produce plant hormones such as auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins in order to communicate with and manipulate their host [45, 54]. Pantoea agglomerans and Pseudomonas syringae, for example, produce the auxin indole acetic acid (IAA) when growing epiphytically [209]. Exogenous auxin application causes the loosening of plant cell walls and release of sugars [210, 211]; it is therefore believed that in planta IAA production is likely to increase the rate of sugar exudation from the leaf [104, 212]. This strategy for accessing carbon can provide a selective advantage—IAA producing P. agglomerans grew faster and reached larger populations than a mutant lacking this ability [212]. Production of the plant hormones abscisic acid (ABA) and ethylene can also affect stomatal opening, increasing water availability [45, 213], while cytokinins may trigger the release of methanol, which is metabolised by some bacterial epiphytes [90, 104]. The manipulation of phytohormones is also known in fungal endophytes, although this is often associated with induction of hormone production in the plant [214]. More recently, the direct production of phytohormones by endophytic and epiphytic yeasts and filamentous fungi has been observed [215, 216]. Examples include the production of the auxin indole acetic acid and the cytokinin zeatin by epiphytic basidiomycete and ascomycete yeasts [216, 217]. Phytohormone production is also known in endophytic yeasts, where it has been linked to plant growth promotion and pathogen suppression, although the mechanisms involved remain unclear [215, 216, 218].
To increase nutrient exudation and availability on the leaf surface, some epiphytes produce compounds known as surfactants that increase the wettability of the leaf surface [43, 44, 74, 90, 219,220,221]. Pseudomonas syringae isolates produce syringafactin and syringomycin; syringafactin is hygroscopic and sorbs to leaf cuticle waxes, increasing their permeability to nutrients as well as their wettability [222], while the potent biosurfactant syringomycin induces the formation of host membrane ion channels to induce a flux of metabolites from the cell [223]. While syringomycin is phytotoxic at high concentrations, sub-toxic concentrations are produced by non-pathogenic Pseudomonas syringae isolates, indicating a role in epiphytic fitness [224]. Surfactant production is also known in yeasts and fungi, but has been studied to a much lesser extent in these organisms [225,226,227]. For example, surfactants produced by some Trichoderma sp. are thought to have a role in biocontrol activity towards other fungi [226].
Another strategy is the secretion of enzymes such as cutinases, esterases and lipases which can liberate nutrients from the cuticle and, by degrading cuticular components, increase its permeability to nutrients and the plants’ susceptibility to infection [228, 229]. Phyllosphere microbe metaproteomes also show enrichment for ABC transporters, porins and TonB-dependent transport systems, suggesting an enhanced capacity for nutrient uptake [47, 68, 82, 84]. Proteins of the OmpA porin family from gram-negative bacteria are among the most abundant found on the leaf surface [84, 230]. It is also common for epiphytic microbes to produce iron-chelating siderophores to maximise iron uptake; well-known examples include pyochelins, pyoverdines and pseudobactins from Pseudomonas species [54, 231]. Siderophore production is also common among epiphytic yeasts, where it is associated with biocontrol activities against fungal pathogens [99, 232].
Commonalities between epiphytic and phytopathogenic adaptations
Consideration of this suite of epiphytic adaptations raises three important points: firstly, many adaptations to life as an epiphyte often show similarities to the adaptations of biotrophic pathogens, with overlap between epiphytic and biotrophic adaptations such as production of plant hormones, production of surfactants and plant defence suppression; these similarities will be explored further below. Secondly, many of the adaptations necessary for life as an epiphyte moderate the environment around the microbe and can thus be considered public goods; and thirdly, most of these adaptations seem specific to, or have largely been studied in, bacteria and yeasts. Together, these observations raise some interesting possibilities about epiphytic microbial ecology and evolution.
Rather than a binary differentiation between harmless residents and phytopathogens, these traits can be seen as a continuum: many hemibiotrophic bacterial pathogens, in fact, behave as epiphytes during early colonisation of leaves [87, 233, 234]. Virulent Pseudomonas syringae plant pathogens, for example, are often differentiated from non-pathogenic epiphytic strains by a single host-specific virulence factor. Strikingly, many of the genes encoding virulence factors, particularly those for effector proteins, are found on plasmids or in pathogenicity islands; the difference between pathogenic and commensal microbe can therefore be the gain or loss of a plasmid [104, 235,236,237]. There are similar examples of virulence factors being encoded on dispensable or even exchangeable parts of the genome in plant associated fungi, including the transfer of ToxA from Parastagonospora nodorum to Pyrenophora tritici-repentis [238].
In Pseudomonas syringae, as in other plant-associated bacteria, many traits that are key to both epiphytic and pathogenic lifestyles are under quorum sensing (QS) regulation [145, 219, 231]. These include swarming motility, EPS secretion, siderophore secretion, production of the phytotoxin coronatine and delivery of effectors via the type three secretion system (T3SS) to disarm host immunity [145, 219, 231]. QS is a process in which bacteria produce and respond to specific molecules whose concentration in the environment is a proxy for population density [48, 145, 219]. On the leaf surface, QS regulation of these virulence determinants plays a major role, not only in determining whether bacteria will proliferate epiphytically or become virulent, but also in co-ordinating these processes with abiotic conditions. On the heterogeneous leaf surface, water is unevenly distributed [32, 140]. The concentration of QS signals thus depends, not only on microbial numbers, but also on the volume of water. QS signals repress motility in Pseudomonas syringae [219], an epiphytic adaptation which helps the bacteria to remain in pockets of available water and nutrients, where their populations can expand [145, 219]. Quorum sensing is also known in many fungal species, where it can be important in determining growth form [239, 240]. Interestingly, fungal QS signals, such as farnesol, are also involved in biofilm formation in some fungi, and both fungal and bacterial QS signals were recently shown to induce biofilm formation by Ophiostoma piceae, including in mixed-kingdom biofilms formed in consortium with the bacterium Pseudomonas putida. Given the importance of biofilm formation, including cross-kingdom biofilm formation, on the leaf surface, this suggests that QS molecules from both bacteria and fungi may play an important role in determining colonisation success and stress survival in epiphytic microbial communities. Further, volatile QS signals have been identified from Fusarium culmorum and Cochliobolus sativus and may show promise in retarding phytopathogen growth [241].
Interactions between epiphytic microbes
A large proportion of leaf surface microbes occur in the same conducive microhabitats [83, 104, 126] and may collaborate intimately in multispecies biofilm formation [90, 197,198,199]. Microbe-microbe interactions in the phyllosphere are not always collaborative—under resource limitation they are, of course, often competitive, and another epiphytic adaptation is the production of antimicrobials [34, 71, 108, 231, 242,243,244,245]. These interactions, and their potential exploitation for biocontrol of phytopathogens, are reviewed in detail elsewhere [243, 246, 247]. Whatever their relationship, the presence of other epiphytic microbes will change the environment experienced by each. For instance, increased nutrient exudation and diffusion due to surfactants make nutrients available to all microbes in the vicinity while siderophores can be taken up by any organism with the correct receptor. This has clear implications for microbial interactions on the leaf surface. In the next section of this review, we consider the possible interactions between the epiphytic microbiome and an economically important plant pathogen, the fungus Zymoseptoria tritici, which spends considerable time as an epiphyte and so provides a particularly interesting case study. We propose that the research effort that has been put forward in understanding this crop pathogen could be leveraged by using Z. tritici as a model system in studying microbe-microbe and microbe-microbe-plant interactions on the leaf surface.
Zymoseptoria tritici as a case study and potential model system for epiphytic fungi-bacteria interactions
Filamentous fungi are often considered ephemeral members of epiphytic communities, largely because their success in planta is often predicated on rapid entry into the leaf, either through stomata or by direct penetration [248,249,250], and it is generally assumed that once the spores of these fungi germinate, there is a short window in which the fungus must enter the leaf interior or starve [251,252,253], leading to adaptations for rapid leaf entry. Puccinia graminis, for example, follows the anticlinal cell walls of leaves until a stomatal entry point is found, while Magnaporthe oryzae ignores stomata, instead entering the leaf using a high-pressure injection system—the appressorium [254, 255]. The perception that such adaptations are universal in plant-associated fungi is likely a product of the intensive research effort into a relatively small number of economically important plant pathogenic fungi for which this is true [256]. However, there are filamentous fungi that are resident on the leaf surface for part or all of their lifecycle, and do not fit the paradigm of ‘sense host, germinate, penetrate’ at all. Examples include the sooty blotch and flyspeck fungi that grow on apples post-harvest [257] and biofilm forming growth of various fusaria [184,185,186, 196]. It is not currently known whether these filamentous fungal epiphytes possess similar adaptations to those seen in bacteria, as these fungi are neither economically devastating pathogens nor known as candidates for biocontrol of such pathogens, meaning that they have received little research attention.
A recent development may, however, mean that epiphytic adaptation has become relevant for a full understanding of the lifecycle of an important crop pathogen, Zymoseptoria tritici, the causal agent of Septoria tritici leaf blotch (STB) of wheat [258]. Until recently, this fungus was believed to behave like other plant pathogenic fungi, germinating on wheat leaves and finding its way into the leaf through the stomata within 24–72 h [259,260,261,262,263,264]. However, no adaptations for rapid entry comparable to those in other plant pathogenic fungi have been found in Z. tritici. Most studies have reported random or untargeted growth [260, 265, 266], with hyphae often growing over stomata if they are closed (Fig. 3). In 2017, a study by Fones et al. [265] indicated that virulent isolates could spend up to 10 days on the leaf surface under optimal conditions, during which time hyphae grew over the leaf surface at random before entering through stomata or wounds [265, 267]. This was corroborated by studies that showed asynchronous germination on the leaf surface, followed by a variable but often prolonged period of epiphytic growth [268], which, in fungal isolates of equal virulence, varied in extent and morphology [269]. Blastosporulation (microcycle conidiation; Fig. 2) and anastomosis were shown to occur on the leaf surface [270] and epiphytic proliferation was described in isolates growing on resistant wheat that they could not penetrate [271]. Microcycle conidiation represents the simplification of a fungal life cycle in which the fungus produces spores directly from spores, rather than from mycelia [272]. This provides a way of building the population when spore germination and hyphal growth are not favourable, such as on a resistant host [271]. Avirulent isolates were also shown to contribute to sexual reproduction in planta even without penetrating leaves [273, 274]. Together, these findings indicate that Zymoseptoria tritici has an epiphytic stage in its lifecycle, for which it is likely to possess adaptations. Thus, this fungus, which has received significant research effort [260, 275,276,277,278,279,280,281,282] and for which molecular and genetic tools are available [278, 279, 283, 284], can be considered a candidate model system for the interaction of a filamentous fungus with the leaf surface microbiota. It is known that Z. tritici manipulates the wheat defences to create ‘systemic induced susceptibility’ once it has established infection, and that this involves the induction of dysbiosis [285], but so far little or nothing is known about its interaction with epiphytic microbes.
Zymoseptoria tritici: epiphytic adaptations and potential interactions with the phylloplane microbiome
Many of the adaptations seen in epiphytic bacteria and yeasts have been detected or can be hypothesised in Z. tritici. For instance, pycnidiospores of Z. tritici have been shown to produce cutinases on the leaf surface. These enzymes are thought to play a role in initial adhesion to the leaf [259, 264, 286], but their action is likely to increase cuticle permeability and thus nutrient exudation, as with bacterial cutinases and esterases [228, 229]. Transcriptome analysis has revealed other Z. tritici enzymes potentially involved in acquiring nutrients during epiphytic growth, including peptidases, pectinases, lipases, cellulases, hemicellulases and xylanases [259, 264, 286, 287]. Some of these enzymes may be linked to scavenging freely available nutrients; however, they may also be involved in the acquisition of nutrients via physical breakdown of the plant itself. Transcriptomics has also revealed the upregulation of genes responsible for the secretion of four hydrophobins, proteins involved in the interactions between hyphae and hydrophobic surfaces—these may be involved in leaf attachment [288]. Leaf architecture may also play a part in adhesion (see Fig. 3): leaf washing led to the enrichment of trichome-associated Z. tritici [265], and preferential blastospore location in stomatal depressions and around trichomes was also observed [289].
It is notable that these zones of increased adhesion or multiplication by Z. tritici coincide with the leaf areas identified as richer in water and nutrients, and consequently hosting bacterial and yeast aggregates in relatively high densities. However, unlike bacterial epiphytes, it remains to be determined whether Z. tritici obtains nutrients from its host prior to penetration. A carbon source repressed GFP construct showed bright fluorescence on the leaf surface, hence no evidence of carbon uptake during epiphytic growth [289]. Rudd et al. also failed to find evidence for hexose or nitrogen assimilation during the first 8 days of leaf contact in transcriptomic and metabolomic studies [264]. These findings contrast with the transcriptomic evidence for expression of leaf surface degrading enzymes described above. Interpretation of population-level transcriptomes is now known to be complicated in Z. tritici due to the asynchronous behaviour of the fungus in planta [265, 268, 269], but the results from the carbon utilisation bioreporter appear convincing, and it is plausible that Z. tritici does not rely on the leaf to provide carbon. A recent study showed that Z. tritici remains viable and virulent after 49 days suspended in pure water or in soil [290]. This work demonstrated that Z. tritici relies on stored lipids during this extended period of starvation. Thus, carbon uptake on the leaf surface may not be necessary. In that case, it is possible that the action of cutinases, esterases and other cuticle-modifying enzymes, increasing the permeability of the cuticle and with it, nutrient exudation from the leaf, has another purpose. One obvious possibility is that Z. tritici does take up and rely upon host-derived nitrogen, which cannot be supplied by lipids. Alternatively, cuticle modification may act to recruit other microbes to areas of Z. tritici leaf surface colonisation. It is tempting to speculate that recruitment of bacteria able to increase the wettability of the leaf might facilitate hyphal growth across the surface or that Z. tritici might benefit from bacterial siderophore production. Z. tritici germinates and grows on many substrates [275], including non-host leaves [291], suggesting that it lacks the host perception abilities of other fungal phytopathogens. However, the slow rate of hyphal extension on non-host tobacco leaves, when compared to wheat leaves, paradoxically indicates some host-specificity [291]. Again, it is tempting to speculate that this difference might reflect different host microbiota, if the fungus is not relying on the host directly. Another conceivable interaction between Z. tritici and other epiphytic microbes is the development of mixed species or cross-kingdom biofilms in which multiple epiphytes contribute to the production of the protective ECM (Fig. 4). Biofilms were recently discovered in Z. tritici in vitro [177], and large aggregations of Z. tritici cells were described in planta for both ‘necrosis-inducing with reduced pycnidiation’ (‘NIRP’) isolates [271], and to a lesser extent, for some virulent isolates on susceptible wheat [269]. Z. tritici is generally thought to be highly host specific, causing infection only on wheat and only on specific cultivars. However, thorough review of the literature revealed that the fungus has in fact been isolated from another 26 different grasses, with 6 being probable secondary hosts [292]. Recruitment of epiphytic ‘collaborators’ might protect Z. tritici from host immunity or abiotic stress in hosts to which it is less well-adapted.
However, not all microbes encountered will be beneficial. Z. tritici produces chloroperoxidases in planta, which may be involved in the production of antibiotics used to control competitive microbes in the phyllosphere [264, 293, 294]. There is also evidence of defence against competitive microbes via antibiotic detoxification—a study by Levy et al. [295] found that three catalase isozymes and one superoxide dismutase are synthesised by the fungus in response to 1-hyroxyphenazine, an antibiotic secreted by Pseudomonas aeruginosa. It seems likely that full understanding of the epiphytic phase of Z. tritici will require better insights into the relationships between this plant pathogen and other phyllosphere inhabitants (Fig. 4).
Conclusions and future directions
It is clear that the leaf surface is an important microbial habitat that has, until fairly recently, been overlooked by researchers interested in plant health and the control of phytopathogens. It is now understood that the microbial communities there are crafted by the host plant, but also influenced by and connected with much broader factors, such as neighbouring plants, soil, water and air, with influence even at the level of the earth’s systems. However, at the scale experienced by individual microbes, the leaf surface is an intricate landscape with variable and topographically dictated availability of water, nutrients, mutualists and competitors. Microbes show exquisite suites of adaptations that manipulate the host plant and improve access to nutrients. These are best understood in bacteria such as Pseudomonas syringae, but intriguing findings about the phenotype and transcriptome of the fungal plant pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici suggest that some similar adaptations may be present, for example for increasing cuticle permeability and breaking down cuticle components. The evidence suggests that Z. tritici, however, does not necessarily obtain or rely on carbon from the host plant, raising the possibility that carbon liberated from the host cuticle could be used to recruit chemotactic, mobile bacteria, with which the fungus may then interact. This would make Z. tritici an excellent model system for research into microbe-microbe-plant interactions on the phylloplane, as well as opening up potential avenues for biocontrol of this economically important plant pathogen.
Availability of data and materials
N/A.
References
Fones HN, Bebber DP, Chaloner TM, Kay WT, Steinberg G, Gurr SJ. Threats to global food security from emerging fungal and oomycete crop pathogens. Nat Food. 2020;1(6):332–42.
Fones HN, Fisher MC, Gurr SJ. Emerging fungal threats to plants and animals challenge agriculture and ecosystem resilience. In: The fungal kingdom. 2017. p. 787–809.
Kopittke PM, Menzies NW, Wang P, McKenna BA, Lombi E. Soil and the intensification of agriculture for global food security. Environ Int. 2019;132:105078.
Timmusk S, Abd El-Daim IA, Copolovici L, Tanilas T, Kännaste A, Behers L, Nevo E, Seisenbaeva G, Stenström E, Niinemets Ü. Drought-tolerance of wheat improved by rhizosphere bacteria from harsh environments: enhanced biomass production and reduced emissions of stress volatiles. PLoS One. 2014;9:e96086.
Naylor D, Sadler N, Bhattacharjee A, Graham EB, Anderton CR, McClure R, Lipton M, Hofmockel KS, Jansson JK. Soil microbiomes under climate change and implications for carbon cycling. Annu Rev Environ Resour. 2020;45:29–59.
Islam W, Noman A, Naveed H, Huang Z, Chen HYH. Role of environmental factors in shaping the soil microbiome. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2020;27:41225–47.
Marasco R, Rolli E, Ettoumi B, et al. A drought resistance-promoting microbiome is selected by root system under desert farming. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48479.
Yadav N, Kour D. Microbiomes of freshwater lake ecosystems. J Microbiol Exp. 2018;6:245–8.
Rocca JD, Simonin M, Bernhardt ES, Washburne AD, Wright JP, Simonin M, Bernhardt ES, Washburne AD, Wright JP. Rare microbial taxa emerge when communities collide: freshwater and marine microbiome responses to experimental mixing. Ecology. 2020;101:e02956.
Fröhlich-Nowoisky J, Kampf CJ, Weber B, et al. Bioaerosols in the Earth system: climate, health, and ecosystem interactions. Atmos Res. 2016;182:346–76.
Morris CE, Leyronas C, Nicot PC. Movement of bioaerosols in the atmosphere and the consequences for climate and microbial evolution. Aerosol Sci. 2014;9781119977926:393–415.
Wu H, Cui H, Fu C, Li R, Qi F, Liu Z, Yang G, Xiao K, Qiao M. Unveiling the crucial role of soil microorganisms in carbon cycling: a review. Sci Total Environ. 2024;909:168627.
Klimasmith IM, Kent AD. Micromanaging the nitrogen cycle in agroecosystems. Trends Microbiol. 2022;30:1045–55.
Das BK, Ishii S, Antony L, Smart AJ, Scaria J, Brözel VS. The microbial nitrogen cycling, bacterial community composition, and functional potential in a natural grassland are stable from breaking dormancy to being dormant again. Microorganisms. 2022;10:923.
Fones HN, Gurr SJ. NOXious gases and the unpredictability of emerging plant pathogens under climate change. BMC Biol. 2017;15(1):1–9.
Mathesius U. Are legumes different? Origins and consequences of evolving nitrogen fixing symbioses. J Plant Physiol. 2022;276:153765.
Xu P, Wang E. Diversity and regulation of symbiotic nitrogen fixation in plants. Curr Biol. 2023;33:R543–59.
Mitra D, Djebaili R, Pellegrini M, et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis: plant growth improvement and induction of resistance under stressful conditions. J Plant Nutr. 2021;44:1993–2028.
Dastogeer KMG, Tumpa FH, Sultana A, Akter MA, Chakraborty A. Plant microbiome–an account of the factors that shape community composition and diversity. Curr Plant Biol. 2020;23:100161.
Trivedi P, Batista BD, Bazany KE, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions under a changing world: responses, consequences and perspectives. New Phytol. 2022;234:1951–9.
Ling N, Wang T, Kuzyakov Y. Rhizosphere bacteriome structure and functions. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1–13.
de Faria MR, Costa LSAS, Chiaramonte JB, Bettiol W, Mendes R. The rhizosphere microbiome: functions, dynamics, and role in plant protection. Trop Plant Pathol. 2020;46(1):13–25.
Durán P, Thiergart T, Garrido-oter R, Agler M, Kemen E, Schulze-lefert P, Hacquard S. Microbial interkingdom interactions in roots promote Arabidopsis survival. Cell. 2018;175:973–83.
Meena M, Swapnil P, Divyanshu K, Kumar S, Harish TYN, Zehra A, Marwal A, Upadhyay RS. PGPR-mediated induction of systemic resistance and physiochemical alterations in plants against the pathogens: current perspectives. J Basic Microbiol. 2020;60:828–61.
Etesami H, Adl S, Etesami H, Adl SM. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and their action mechanisms in availability of nutrients to plants. 2020. p. 147–203.
Meyer-Abich A. Beiträge zur Theorie der Evolution der Organismen. I. Das typologische Grundgesetz und seine Folgerungen für Phylogenie und Entwicklungsphysiologie. Acta Biotheor. 1943;7:1–80.
Baedke J, Fábregas-Tejeda A, Nieves Delgado A. The holobiont concept before Margulis. J Exp Zool B Mol Dev Evol. 2020;334:149–55.
Berlanga-Clavero MV, Molina-Santiago C, de Vicente A, Romero D. More than words: the chemistry behind the interactions in the plant holobiont. Environ Microbiol. 2020;22:4532–44.
Fitzpatrick CR, Salas-González I, Conway JM, Finkel OM, Gilbert S, Russ D, Teixeira PJPL, Dangl JL. The plant microbiome: from ecology to reductionism and beyond. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2020;74:81–100.
Russ D, Fitzpatrick CR, Teixeira PJPL, Dangl JL. Deep discovery informs difficult deployment in plant microbiome science. Cell. 2023;186:4496–513.
Moroenyane I, Mendes L, Tremblay J, Tripathi B, Yergeau,. Plant compartments and developmental stages modulate the balance between niche-based and neutral processes in soybean microbiome. Microb Ecol. 2021;82:416–28.
Doan HK, Ngassam VN, Gilmore SF, Tecon R, Parikh AN, Leveau JHJ. Topography-driven shape, spread, and retention of leaf surface water impacts microbial dispersion and activity in the phyllosphere. Phytobiomes J. 2020;4:268–80.
Shelake RM, Pramanik D, Kim JY. Exploration of plant-microbe interactions for sustainable agriculture in CRISPR era. Microorganisms. 2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/microorganisms7080269.
Li PD, Zhu ZR, Zhang Y, Xu J, Wang H, Wang Z, Li H. The phyllosphere microbiome shifts toward combating melanose pathogen. Microbiome. 2022;10:1–17.
Teixeira PJP, Colaianni NR, Fitzpatrick CR, Dangl JL. Beyond pathogens: microbiota interactions with the plant immune system. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;49:7–17.
Zhan C, Matsumoto H, Liu Y, Wang M. Pathways to engineering the phyllosphere microbiome for sustainable crop production. Nat Food. 2022;3:997–1004.
Xiong C, Singh BK, He JZ, et al. Plant developmental stage drives the differentiation in ecological role of the maize microbiome. Microbiome. 2021;9:1–15.
Xiong C, Zhu YG, Wang JT, et al. Host selection shapes crop microbiome assembly and network complexity. New Phytol. 2021;229:1091–104.
Sapkota R, Knorr K, Jørgensen LN, O’Hanlon KA, Nicolaisen M. Host genotype is an important determinant of the cereal phyllosphere mycobiome. New Phytol. 2015;207:1134–44.
Bodenhausen N, Bortfeld-Miller M, Ackermann M, Vorholt JA. A synthetic community approach reveals plant genotypes affecting the phyllosphere microbiota. PLoS Genet. 2014. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1004283.
Meyer KM, Porch R, Muscettola IE, Vasconcelos ALS, Sherman JK, Metcalf CJE, Lindow SE, Koskella B. Plant neighborhood shapes diversity and reduces interspecific variation of the phyllosphere microbiome. ISME J. 2022;16(5):1376–87.
Guo B, Zhang H, Liu Y, Chen J, Li J. Assembly of cereal crop fungal communities under water stress determined by host niche. Environ Exp Bot. 2024;219:105650.
Leveau JH. A brief from the leaf: latest research to inform our understanding of the phyllosphere microbiome. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;49:41–9.
Koskella B. The phyllosphere. Curr Biol. 2020;30:R1143–6.
Bashir I, War AF, Rafiq I, Reshi ZA, Rashid I, Shouche YS. Phyllosphere microbiome: diversity and functions. Microbiol Res. 2022;254:126888.
Copeland JK, Yuan L, Layeghifard M, Wang PW, Guttman DS. Seasonal community succession of the phyllosphere microbiome. 2015;28:274–285. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-10-14-0331-FI.
Vorholt JA. Microbial life in the phyllosphere. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2012;10(12):828–40.
Chaudhry V, Runge P, Sengupta P, Doehlemann G, Parker JE, Kemen E. Shaping the leaf microbiota: plant–microbe–microbe interactions. J Exp Bot. 2021;72:36–56.
Yin Y, Zhu D, Yang G, Su J, Duan G. Diverse antibiotic resistance genes and potential pathogens inhabit in the phyllosphere of fresh vegetables. Sci Total Environ. 2022;815:152851.
Maeusli M, Lee B, Miller S, Reyna Z, Lu P, Yan J, Ulhaq A, Skandalis N, Spellberg B, Luna B. Horizontal gene transfer of antibiotic resistance from Acinetobacter baylyi to Escherichia coli on lettuce and subsequent antibiotic resistance transmission to the gut microbiome. mSphere. 2020;5:e00329-20.
He R, Hu S, Li Q, Zhao D, Wu QL, Zeng J. Greater transmission capacities and small-world characteristics of bacterial communities in the above- than those in the below- ground niches of a typical submerged macrophyte, Vallisneria natans. Sci Total Environ. 2023;903:166229.
Peng D, Wang Z, Tian J, Wang W, Guo S, Dai X, Yin H, Li L. Phyllosphere bacterial community dynamics in response to bacterial wildfire disease: succession and interaction patterns. Front Plant Sci. 2024;15:1331443.
Zhu YG, Xiong C, Wei Z, Chen QL, Ma B, Zhou SYD, Tan J, Zhang LM, Cui HL, Duan GL. Impacts of global change on the phyllosphere microbiome. New Phytol. 2022;234:1977–86.
Sohrabi R, Paasch BC, Liber JA, He SY. Phyllosphere microbiome. 2023;74:539–68.
Bell-Dereske LP, Evans SE. Contributions of environmental and maternal transmission to the assembly of leaf fungal endophyte communities. Proc Biol Sci. 2021;288:20210621.
Morales Moreira ZP, Helgason BL, Germida JJ. Crop, genotype, and field environmental conditions shape bacterial and fungal seed epiphytic microbiomes. Can J Microbiol. 2021;67:161–73.
Bao L, Gu L, Sun B, Cai W, Zhang S, Zhuang G, Bai Z, Zhuang X. Seasonal variation of epiphytic bacteria in the phyllosphere of Gingko biloba, Pinus bungeana and Sabina chinensis. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2020;96:17.
Li Y, Pan J, Zhang R, Wang J, Tian D, Niu S. Environmental factors, bacterial interactions and plant traits jointly regulate epiphytic bacterial community composition of two alpine grassland species. Sci Total Environ. 2022;836:155665.
Zhan C, Matsumoto H, Liu Y, Wang M. Pathways to engineering the phyllosphere microbiome for sustainable crop production. Nat Food. 2022;3(12):997–1004.
Abdelfattah A, Wisniewski M, Schena L, Tack AJM. Experimental evidence of microbial inheritance in plants and transmission routes from seed to phyllosphere and root. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:2199–214.
Li Y, Wang S, Chen Q. Potential of thirteen urban greening plants to capture particulate matter on leaf surfaces across three levels of ambient atmospheric pollution. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16:402.
Abrahamian P, Sharma A, Jones JB, Vallad GE. Dynamics and spread of bacterial spot epidemics in tomato transplants grown for field production. Plant Dis. 2021;105:566–75.
Visser B, Herselman L, Park RF, Karaoglu H, Bender CM, Pretorius ZA. Characterization of two new Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici races within the Ug99 lineage in South Africa. Euphytica. 2011;179:119–27.
Fones HN, Fisher MC, Gurr SJ. Emerging fungal threats to plants and animals challenge agriculture and ecosystem resilience. Microbiol Spectr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1128/microbiolspec.funk-0027-2016.
Nagarajan S. Meteorological conditions associated with long-distance dissemination and deposition of Puccinia graminis tritici uredospores in India. Phytopathology. 1976;66:198.
Fones HN, Mardon C, Gurr SJ. A role for the asexual spores in infection of Fraxinus excelsior by the ash-dieback fungus Hymenoscyphus fraxineus. Sci Rep. 2016;6(1):1–10.
Lopez-Velasco G, Welbaum GE, Boyer RR, Mane SP, Ponder MA. Changes in spinach phylloepiphytic bacteria communities following minimal processing and refrigerated storage described using pyrosequencing of 16S rRNA amplicons. J Appl Microbiol. 2011;110:1203–14.
Lambais MR, Barrera SE, Santos EC, Crowley DE, Jumpponen A. Phyllosphere metaproteomes of trees from the Brazilian Atlantic Forest show high levels of functional redundancy. Microb Ecol. 2017;73:123–34.
Zervas A, Zeng Y, Madsen AM, Hansen LH, Martinez-Romero E. Genomics of aerobic photoheterotrophs in wheat phyllosphere reveals divergent evolutionary patterns of photosynthetic genes in Methylobacterium spp. Genome Biol Evol. 2019;11:2895–908.
Beattie GA. Water relations in the interaction of foliar bacterial pathogens with plants. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2011;49:533–55.
Dong C, Wang L, Li Q, Shang Q. Epiphytic and endophytic fungal communities of tomato plants. Hortic Plant J. 2021;7:38–48.
Kumamoto CA. Molecular mechanisms of mechanosensing and their roles in fungal contact sensing. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2008;6(9):667–73.
Shakir S, Zaidi SS, e. A, de Vries FT, Mansoor S,. Plant genetic networks shaping phyllosphere microbial community. Trends Genet. 2021;37:306–16.
Remus-Emsermann MNP, Schlechter RO. Phyllosphere microbiology: at the interface between microbial individuals and the plant host. New Phytol. 2018;218:1327–33.
Schlechter RO, Remus-Emsermann MN. Bacterial community complexity in the phyllosphere penalises specialists over generalists. bioRxiv. 2023;2023-11.
Flores-Núñez VM, Fonseca-García C, Desgarennes D, Eloe-Fadrosh E, Woyke T, Partida-Martínez LP. Functional signatures of the epiphytic prokaryotic microbiome of agaves and cacti. Front Microbiol. 2020;10: 497213.
Tsarelunga AA, Blagoveschenskaya EY. Phylloplane as fungi habitat. Biol Bull Rev. 2024;14(3):271–85.
Berg G, Cernava T. The plant microbiota signature of the Anthropocene as a challenge for microbiome research. Microbiome. 2022;10:1–12.
Sun M, Wang H, Shi C, Li J, Cai L, Xiang L, Liu T, Goodwin PH, Chen X, Wang L. Effect of azoxystrobin on tobacco leaf microbial composition and diversity. Front Plant Sci. 2023;13:1–16.
Chen J, Sharifi R, Khan MSS, Islam F, Bhat JA, Kui L, Majeed A. Wheat microbiome: structure, dynamics, and role in improving performance under stress environments. Front Microbiol. 2022;12:1–15.
Maignien L, DeForce EA, Chafee ME, Murat Eren A, Simmons SL. Ecological succession and stochastic variation in the assembly of Arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere communities. mBio. 2014;5:e00682-13.
Knief C, Delmotte N, Chaffron S, Stark M, Innerebner G, Wassmann R, Von Mering C, Vorholt JA. Metaproteogenomic analysis of microbial communities in the phyllosphere and rhizosphere of rice. ISME J. 2012;6(7):1378–90. (2011).
Rastogi G, Sbodio A, Tech JJ, Suslow TV, Coaker GL, Leveau JHJ. Leaf microbiota in an agroecosystem: spatiotemporal variation in bacterial community composition on field-grown lettuce. ISME J. 2012;6(10):1812–22.
Delmotte N, Knief C, Chaffron S, Innerebner G, Roschitzki B, Schlapbach R, Von Mering C, Vorholt JA. Community proteogenomics reveals insights into the physiology of phyllosphere bacteria. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2009;106:16428–33.
Santamaría J, Bayman P. Fungal epiphytes and endophytes of coffee leaves (Coffea arabica). Microb Ecol. 2005;50:1–8.
Laforest-Lapointe I, Messier C, Kembel SW. Host species identity, site and time drive temperate tree phyllosphere bacterial community structure. Microbiome. 2016;4:1–10.
Bordjiba O, Prunier JP. Establishment of an epiphytic phase by three species of Pseudomonas on apricot trees. Acta Hortic. 1991;293:487–94.
Finkel OM, Delmont TO, Post AF, Belkin S. Metagenomic signatures of bacterial adaptation to life in the phyllosphere of a salt-secreting desert tree. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2016;82:2854–61.
Vokou D, Genitsaris S, Karamanoli K, Vareli K, Zachari M, Voggoli D, Monokrousos N, Halley JM, Sainis I. Metagenomic characterization reveals pronounced seasonality in the diversity and structure of the phyllosphere bacterial community in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Microorganisms. 2019;7:518.
Thapa S, Prasanna R. Prospecting the characteristics and significance of the phyllosphere microbiome. Ann Microbiol. 2018;68(5):229–45.
Tang G, Fan Y, Li X, Tian R, Tang R, Xu L, Zhang J. Effects of leaf properties on the counts of microbes on the leaf surfaces of wheat, rye and triticale. FEMS Microbiol Ecol. 2023;99:1–10.
Tang G, Xu L, Yin X, Hu Y, Tian J, Zhang J. Microbial colonization on the leaf surfaces of different genotypes of napier grass. Arch Microbiol. 2021;203:335–46.
Sláviková E, Vadkertiová R, Vránová D. Yeasts colonizing the leaf surfaces. J Basic Microbiol. 2007;47:344–50.
Into P, Pontes A, Sampaio JP, Limtong S. Yeast diversity associated with the phylloplane of corn plants cultivated in Thailand. Microorganisms. 2020;8:80.
Haelewaters D, Toome-Heller M, Albu S, Aime MC. Red yeasts from leaf surfaces and other habitats: three new species and a new combination of Symmetrospora (Pucciniomycotina, Cystobasidiomycetes). Fungal Syst Evol. 2019;5:187–96.
Li AH, Yuan FX, Groenewald M, et al. Diversity and phylogeny of basidiomycetous yeasts from plant leaves and soil: proposal of two new orders, three new families, eight new genera and one hundred and seven new species. Stud Mycol. 2020;96:17–140.
Jager ES, Wehner FC, Korsten L. Microbial ecology of the mango phylloplane. Microb Ecol. 2001;42:201–7.
Inácio J, Pereira P, De Carvalho M, Fonseca Á, Amaral-Collaço MT, Spencer-Martins I. Estimation and diversity of phylloplane mycobiota on selected plants in a Mediterranean-type ecosystem in Portugal. Microb Ecol. 2002;44:344–53.
Limtong S, Into P, Attarat P. Biocontrol of rice seedling rot disease caused by Curvularia lunata and Helminthosporium oryzae by epiphytic yeasts from plant leaves. Microorganisms. 2020;8:647.
Singh P, Santoni S, Weber A, This P, Péros JP. Understanding the phyllosphere microbiome assemblage in grape species (Vitaceae) with amplicon sequence data structures. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–11.
Zarraonaindia I, Owens SM, Weisenhorn P, et al. The soil microbiome influences grapevine-associated microbiota. mBio. 2015. https://doi.org/10.1128/MBIO.02527-14/ASSET/0FB7076E-BB07-4D63-BE4D-FCAF6D9AD5BE/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/MBO0021522390004.JPEG.
Morris CE. Phyllosphere. Encyclopedia of life sciences. 2002. https://doi.org/10.1038/NPG.ELS.0000400.
Gomes T, Pereira JA, Benhadi J, Lino-Neto T, Baptista P. Endophytic and epiphytic phyllosphere fungal communities are shaped by different environmental factors in a Mediterranean ecosystem. Microb Ecol. 2018;76:668–79.
Lindow SE, Brandl MT. Microbiology of the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2003;69:1875.
Sanders-Smith R, Segovia BT, Forbes C, Hessing-Lewis M, Morien E, Lemay MA, O’Connor MI, Parfrey LW. Host-specificity and core taxa of seagrass leaf microbiome identified across tissue age and geographical regions. Front Ecol Evol. 2020;8:605304.
Mechan-Llontop ME, Mullet J, Shade A. Phyllosphere exudates select for distinct microbiome members in sorghum epicuticular wax and aerial root mucilage. Phytobiomes J. 2023;7:184–97.
Heidrich D, Corbellini VA, Mendes SDC, Fernandes EK, Lazzarotto L, Ribeiro AC, Zanette RA, Scroferneker ML. Melanin: quantification and protection against oxidative stress in chromoblastomycosis agents. Med Mycol. 2019;57:260–3.
Li P, Xu J, Wang Z, Li H. Phyllosphere microbiome in response to citrus melanose. 2020. https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-51076/V1.
Li M, Hong L, Ye W, Wang Z, Shen H. Phyllosphere bacterial and fungal communities vary with host species identity, plant traits and seasonality in a subtropical forest. Environ Microbiome. 2022;17:1–13.
He C, Zhang M, Li X, He X. Seasonal dynamics of phyllosphere epiphytic microbial communities of medicinal plants in farmland environment. Front Plant Sci. 2023;14:1328586.
Gao C, Montoya L, Xu L, et al. Fungal community assembly in drought-stressed sorghum shows stochasticity, selection, and universal ecological dynamics. Nat Commun. 2020;11:1–14.
Grady KL, Sorensen JW, Stopnisek N, Guittar J, Shade A. Assembly and seasonality of core phyllosphere microbiota on perennial biofuel crops. Nat Commun. 2019;10:1–10.
Zhang J, Zhang N, Liu YX, et al. Root microbiota shift in rice correlates with resident time in the field and developmental stage. Sci China Life Sci. 2018;61:613–21.
Sasse J, Martinoia E, Northen T. Feed your friends: do plant exudates shape the root microbiome? Trends Plant Sci. 2018;23:25–41.
Trivedi P, Leach JE, Tringe SG, Sa T, Singh BK. Plant–microbiome interactions: from community assembly to plant health. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2020;18:607–21.
Cordovez V, Dini-Andreote F, Carrión VJ, Raaijmakers JM. Ecology and evolution of plant microbiomes. Annu Rev Microbiol. 2019;73:69–88.
Ajilogba CF, Olanrewaju OS, Babalola OO. Plant growth stage drives the temporal and spatial dynamics of the bacterial nicrobiome in the rhizosphere of Vigna subterranea. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:825377.
Liu H, Li J, Carvalhais LC, Percy CD, Prakash Verma J, Schenk PM, Singh BK. Evidence for the plant recruitment of beneficial microbes to suppress soil-borne pathogens. New Phytol. 2021;229:2873–85.
Finkel OM, Salas-González I, Castrillo G, Conway JM, Law TF, Teixeira PJPL, Wilson ED, Fitzpatrick CR, Jones CD, Dangl JL. A single bacterial genus maintains root growth in a complex microbiome. Nature. 2020;587:103–8.
Martin FM, Uroz S, Barker DG. Ancestral alliances: plant mutualistic symbioses with fungi and bacteria. Science. 1979. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad4501. (2017).
Foster KR, Schluter J, Coyte KZ, Rakoff-Nahoum S. The evolution of the host microbiome as an ecosystem on a leash. Nature. 2017;548:43–51.
Coyte KZ, Schluter J, Foster KR. The ecology of the microbiome: networks, competition, and stability. Science. 1979;350:663–6. (2015).
Shalev O, Karasov TL, Lundberg DS, Ashkenazy H, Pramoj Na Ayutthaya P, Weigel D. Commensal Pseudomonas strains facilitate protective response against pathogens in the host plant. Nat Ecol Evol. 2022;6(4):383–96.
Schlechter RO, Miebach M, Remus-Emsermann MNP. Driving factors of epiphytic bacterial communities: a review. J Adv Res. 2019;19:57–65.
Vacher C, Hampe A, Porté AJ, Sauer U, Compant S, Morris CE. The phyllosphere: microbial jungle at the plant–climate interface. 2016;47:1–24. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-ecolsys-121415-032238.
Leveau JHJ, Lindow SE. Appetite of an epiphyte: quantitative monitoring of bacterial sugar consumption in the phyllosphere. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2001;98:3446–53.
Remus-Emsermann MNP, de Oliveira S, Schreiber L, Leveau JHJ. Quantification of lateral heterogeneity in carbohydrate permeability of isolated plant leaf cuticles. Front Microbiol. 2011;2:12467.
Shiraishi K, Oku M, Kawaguchi K, Uchida D, Yurimoto H, Sakai Y. Yeast nitrogen utilization in the phyllosphere during plant lifespan under regulation of autophagy. Sci Rep. 2015;5(1):1–11.
Peredo EL, Simmons SL. Leaf-FISH: microscale imaging of bacterial taxa on phyllosphere. Front Microbiol. 2018;8:310644.
Burch AY, Finkel OM, Cho JK, Belkin S, Lindow SE. Diverse microhabitats experienced by Halomonas variabilis on salt-secreting leaves. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2013;79:845–52.
Orevi T, Kashtan N. Life in a droplet: microbial ecology in microscopic surface wetness. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:655459.
Steinberg S, Grinberg M, Beitelman M, Peixoto J, Orevi T, Kashtan N. Two-way microscale interactions between immigrant bacteria and plant leaf microbiota as revealed by live imaging. ISME J. 2021;15:409–20.
Mercier J, Lindow SE. Role of leaf surface sugars in colonization of plants by bacterial epiphytes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2000;66:369–74.
Tang G, Xu L, Wang X, Zhang J. Effects of leaf morphological and chemical properties on the population sizes of epiphytes. Microb Ecol. 2023;85:157–67.
Miller WG, Brandl MT, Quiñones B, Lindow SE. Biological sensor for sucrose availability: relative sensitivities of various reporter genes. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2001;67:1308.
Joyner DC, Lindow SE. Heterogeneity of iron bioavailability on plants assessed with a whole-cell GFP-based bacterial biosensor. Microbiology (Reading). 2000;146(Pt 10):2435–45.
Doan HK, Leveau JHJ. Artificial surfaces in phyllosphere microbiology. 2015;105:1036–1042. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-02-15-0050-RVW.
Beattie GA, Lindow SE. Bacterial colonization of leaves: a spectrum of strategies. Phytopathology. 1999;89:353–9.
Van Der Wal A, Leveau JHJ. Modelling sugar diffusion across plant leaf cuticles: the effect of free water on substrate availability to phyllosphere bacteria. Environ Microbiol. 2011;13:792–7.
Axtell CA, Beattie GA. Construction and characterization of a proU-gfp transcriptional fusion that measures water availability in a microbial habitat. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2002;68:4604–12.
Beizman-Magen Y, Grinberg M, Orevi T, Kashtan N. Wet-dry cycles protect surface-colonizing bacteria from major antibiotic classes. ISME J. 2022;16:91–100.
Brandl MT, Ivanek R, Zekaj N, Belias A, Wiedmann M, Suslow TV, Allende A, Munther DS. Weather stressors correlate with Escherichia coli and Salmonella enterica persister formation rates in the phyllosphere: a mathematical modeling study. ISME communications. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/S43705-022-00170-Z.
Schönherr J. Characterization of aqueous pores in plant cuticles and permeation of ionic solutes. J Exp Bot. 2006;57:2471–91.
Loper JE, Hassan KA, Mavrodi DV, et al. Comparative genomics of plant-associated Pseudomonas spp.: insights into diversity and inheritance of traits involved in multitrophic interactions. PLoS Genet. 2012;8:e1002784.
Quiñones B, Dulla G, Lindow SE. Quorum sensing regulates exopolysaccharide production, motility, and virulence in Pseudomonas syringae. 2007;18:682–693. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-18-0682.
Felipe V, Romero AM, Montecchia MS, Vojnov AA, Bianco MI, Yaryura PM. Xanthomonas vesicatoria virulence factors involved in early stages of bacterial spot development in tomato. Plant Pathol. 2018;67:1936–43.
Tans-Kersten J, Huang H, Allen C. Ralstonia solanacearum needs motility for invasive virulence on tomato. J Bacteriol. 2001;183:3597–605.
Bassilana M, Puerner C, Arkowitz RA. External signal–mediated polarized growth in fungi. Curr Opin Cell Biol. 2020;62:150–8.
Chen H, Zhou X, Ren B, Cheng L. The regulation of hyphae growth in Candida albicans. Virulence. 2020;11:337–48.
Clark-Cotton MR, Jacobs KC, Lew DJ. Chemotropism and cell-cell fusion in fungi. Microbiol Mol Biol Rev. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1128/MMBR.00165-21/ASSET/A8E1E6AB-4B04-4C13-877E-47168B1D44BB/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/MMBR.00165-21-F007.JPG.
Lanver D, Berndt P, Tollot M, Naik V, Vranes M, Warmann T, Münch K, Rössel N, Kahmann R. Plant surface cues prime Ustilago maydis for biotrophic development. PLoS Pathog. 2014;10:1004272.
Elhasi T, Blomberg A. Integrins in disguise - mechanosensors in Saccharomyces cerevisiae as functional integrin analogues. Microb Cell. 2019;6:335–55.
Almeida MC, Brand AC. Thigmo responses: the fungal sense of touch. Microbiol Spectr. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1128/MICROBIOLSPEC.FUNK-0040-2016/ASSET/AA06E842-2250-4A4C-9AA2-EEA91F53E55E/ASSETS/GRAPHIC/FUNK-0040-2016-FIG7.GIF.
Johns LE, Goldman GH, Ries LNA, Brown NA. Nutrient sensing and acquisition in fungi: mechanisms promoting pathogenesis in plant and human hosts. Fungal Biol Rev. 2021;36:1–14.
Monier JM, Lindow SE. Frequency, size, and localization of bacterial aggregates on bean leaf surfaces. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2004;70:346–55.
Morris CE, Monier JM, Jacques MA. A technique to quantify the population size and composition of the biofilm component in communities of bacteria in the phyllosphere. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:4789.
Monier JM, Lindow SE. Differential survival of solitary and aggregated bacterial cells promotes aggregate formation on leaf surfaces. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003;100:15977–82.
Stoodley P, Sauer K, Davies DG, Costerton JW. Biofilms as complex differentiated communities. 2003;56:187–209. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro56012302160705.
Costerton JW, Geesey GG, Cheng KJ. How bacteria stick. Sci Am. 1978;238:86–95.
Blankenship JR, Mitchell AP. How to build a biofilm: a fungal perspective. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2006;9:588–94.
Yadav MK, Vidal JE, Song JJ. Microbial biofilms on medical indwelling devices. In: Yadav MK, Singh BP, editors. New and future developments in microbial biotechnology and bioengineering: microbial biofilms. Elsevier; 2020. p. 15–28.
Surekha S, Lamiyan AK, Gupta V. Antibiotic resistant biofilms and the quest for novel therapeutic strategies. Indian J Microbiol. 2024;64:20–35.
Aleksandrowicz A, Carolak E, Dutkiewicz A, Błachut A, Waszczuk W, Grzymajlo K. Better together – Salmonella biofilm-associated antibiotic resistance. Gut Microbes. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1080/19490976.2023.2229937.
Kragh KN, Tolker-Nielsen T, Lichtenberg M. The non-attached biofilm aggregate. Commun Biol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1038/S42003-023-05281-4.
Wang D, Naqvi STA, Lei F, Zhang Z, Yu H, Ma LZ. Glycosyl hydrolase from Pseudomonas fluorescens inhibits the biofilm formation of Pseudomonads. Biofilm. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.BIOFLM.2023.100155.
Böhning J, Tarafder AK, Bharat TAM. The role of filamentous matrix molecules in shaping the architecture and emergent properties of bacterial biofilms. Biochem J. 2024;481:245–63.
Heredia-Ponce Z, Gutiérrez-Barranquero JA, Purtschert-Montenegro G, Eberl L, Cazorla FM, de Vicente A. Biological role of EPS from Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae UMAF0158 extracellular matrix, focusing on a Psl-like polysaccharide. NPJ Biofilms Microbiomes. 2020;6(1):1–13.
Singh S, Datta S, Narayanan KB, Rajnish KN. Bacterial exo-polysaccharides in biofilms: role in antimicrobial resistance and treatments. J Genet Eng Biotechnol. 2021;19:1–19.
Coulson LE, Schelker J, Attermeyer K, Griebler C, Hein T, Weigelhofer G. Experimental desiccation indicates high moisture content maintains hyporheic biofilm processes during drought in temperate intermittent streams. Aquat Sci. 2021;83:1–14.
Javed MQ, Kovalchuk I, Yevtushenko D, Yang X, Stanford K. Relationship between desiccation tolerance and biofilm formation in shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli. Microorganisms. 2024;12:243.
Cepas V, López Y, Muñoz E, Rolo D, Ardanuy C, Martí S, Xercavins M, Horcajada JP, Bosch J, Soto SM. Relationship between biofilm formation and antimicrobial resistance in gram-negative bacteria. Microb Drug Resist. 2019;25:72–9.
Fan FM, Liu Y, Liu YQ, Lv RX, Sun W, Ding WJ, Cai YX, Li WW, Liu X, Qu W. Candida albicans biofilms: antifungal resistance, immune evasion, and emerging therapeutic strategies. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2022;60:106673.
Nett J, Lincoln L, Marchillo K, Massey R, Holoyda K, Hoff B, VanHandel M, Andes D. Putative role of beta-1,3 glucans in Candida albicans biofilm resistance. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2007;51:510–20.
Mateus C, Crow SA, Ahearn DG. Adherence of Candida albicans to silicone induces immediate enhanced tolerance to fluconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2004;48:3358.
Borghi E, Borgo F, Morace G. Fungal biofilms: update on resistance. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2016. https://doi.org/10.1007/5584_2016_7.
Király Z, El-Zahaby HM, Klement Z. Role of extracellular polysaccharide (EPS) slime of plant pathogenic bacteria in protecting cells to reactive oxygen species. J Phytopathol. 1997;145:59–68.
Tyzack TE, Hacker C, Thomas G, Fones HN. Biofilm formation in Zymoseptoria tritici. 2023. bioRxiv 2023.07.26.550639.
Harding MW, Marques LLR, Howard RJ, Olson ME. Can filamentous fungi form biofilms? Trends Microbiol. 2009;17:475–80.
Harding MW, Marques L, Howard RJ, Olson M. Biofilm morphologies of plant pathogenic fungi. Am J Plant Sci Biotechnol. 2010;4:43–7.
Peremore C, Wingfield B, Santana Q, Steenkamp ET, Motaung TE. Biofilm characterization in the maize pathogen, Fusarium verticillioides. 2022. bioRxiv 2022.11.18.517162.
Villa F, Cappitelli F, Cortesi P, Kunova A. Fungal biofilms: targets for the development of novel strategies in plant disease management. Front Microbiol. 2017;8:230597.
Camacho E, Casadevall A. Cryptococcal traits mediating adherence to biotic and abiotic surfaces. J Fungi (Basel). 2018. https://doi.org/10.3390/JOF4030088.
Oliveira LT, Medina-Alarcón KP, Singulani J de L, Fregonezi NF, Pires RH, Arthur RA, Fusco-Almeida AM, Mendes Giannini MJS. Dynamics of mono- and dual-species biofilm formation and interactions between Paracoccidioides brasiliensis and Candida albicans. Front Microbiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.3389/FMICB.2020.551256.
Peiqian L, Xiaoming P, Huifang S, Jingxin Z, Ning H, Birun L. Biofilm formation by Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum and susceptibility to environmental stress. FEMS Microbiol Lett. 2014;350:138–45.
Shay R, Wiegand AA, Trail F. Biofilm formation and structure in the filamentous fungus Fusarium graminearum, a plant pathogen. Microbiol Spectr. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1128/SPECTRUM.00171-22/ASSET/299D32D5-9390-4D29-AF99-18514910A8E2/ASSETS/IMAGES/LARGE/SPECTRUM.00171-22-F005.JPG.
Li P, Pu X, Feng B, Yang Q, Shen H, Zhang J, Lin B. FocVel1 influences asexual production, filamentous growth, biofilm formation, and virulence in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:1–10.
Van Acker H, Van Dijck P, Coenye T. Molecular mechanisms of antimicrobial tolerance and resistance in bacterial and fungal biofilms. Trends Microbiol. 2014;22:326–33.
Čáp M, Váchová L, Palková Z. Reactive oxygen species in the signaling and adaptation of multicellular microbial communities. Oxid Med Cell Longev. 2012;2012:976753.
Esbelin J, Santos T, Hébraud M. Desiccation: an environmental and food industry stress that bacteria commonly face. Food Microbiol. 2018;69:82–8.
Lee KWK, Periasamy S, Mukherjee M, Xie C, Kjelleberg S, Rice SA. Biofilm development and enhanced stress resistance of a model, mixed-species community biofilm. ISME J. 2014;8:894–907.
Mah TFC, O’Toole GA. Mechanisms of biofilm resistance to antimicrobial agents. Trends Microbiol. 2001;9:34–9.
De la Fuente-Núñez C, Reffuveille F, Fernández L, Hancock REW. Bacterial biofilm development as a multicellular adaptation: antibiotic resistance and new therapeutic strategies. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2013;16:580–9.
Kowalski CH, Morelli KA, Schultz D, Nadell CD, Cramer RA. Fungal biofilm architecture produces hypoxic microenvironments that drive antifungal resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2020;117:22473–83.
Kaur J, Nobile CJ. Antifungal drug-resistance mechanisms in Candida biofilms. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.MIB.2022.102237.
Rajendran R, Williams C, Lappin DF, Millington O, Martins M, Ramage G. Extracellular DNA release acts as an antifungal resistance mechanism in mature Aspergillus fumigatus biofilms. Eukaryot Cell. 2013;12:420.
Córdova-Alcántara IM, Venegas-Cortés DL, Martínez-Rivera MÁ, Pérez NO, Rodriguez-Tovar AV. Biofilm characterization of Fusarium solani keratitis isolate: increased resistance to antifungals and UV light. J Microbiol. 2019;57:485–97.
Lee KWK, Periasamy S, Mukherjee M, Xie C, Kjelleberg S, Rice SA. Biofilm development and enhanced stress resistance of a model, mixed-species community biofilm. ISME J. 2014;8(4):894–907. (2013).
Jahid IK, Han NR, Srey S, Do HS. Competitive interactions inside mixed-culture biofilms of Salmonella typhimurium and cultivable indigenous microorganisms on lettuce enhance microbial resistance of their sessile cells to ultraviolet C (UV-C) irradiation. Food Res Int. 2014;55:445–54.
Sadiq FA, Hansen MF, Burmølle M, Heyndrickx M, Flint S, Lu W, Chen W, Zhang H. Trans-kingdom interactions in mixed biofilm communities. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2022;46:1–20.
Fourie R, Ells R, Swart CW, Sebolai OM, Albertyn J, Pohl CH. Candida albicans and Pseudomonas aeruginosa interaction, with focus on the role of eicosanoids. Front Physiol. 2016;7:177869.
Fourie R, Cason ED, Albertyn J, Pohl CH. Transcriptional response of Candida albicans to Pseudomonas aeruginosav in a polymicrobial biofilm. G3. 2021. https://doi.org/10.1093/G3JOURNAL/JKAB042.
Mitri S, Foster KR. The genotypic view of social interactions in microbial communities. 2013. 47:247–273. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-111212-133307.
Kemen E. Microbe–microbe interactions determine oomycete and fungal host colonization. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2014;20:75–81.
Schierstaedt J, Bziuk N, Kuzmanović N, Blau K, Smalla K, Jechalke S. Role of plasmids in plant-bacteria interactions. Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2019;30:17–38. (2018).
Ghaly TM, Gillings MR, Rajabal V, Paulsen IT, Tetu SG. Horizontal gene transfer in plant microbiomes: integrons as hotspots for cross-species gene exchange. Front Microbiol. 2024;15:1338026.
Sánchez-Salazar AM, Acuña JJ, Sadowsky MJ, Jorquera MA. Bacterial community composition and presence of plasmids in the endosphere- and rhizosphere-associated microbiota of sea fig (Carpobrotus aequilaterus). Diversity. 2023;15:1156.
Sánchez-Salazar AM, Taparia T, Olesen AK, Acuña JJ, Sørensen SJ, Jorquera MA. An overview of plasmid transfer in the plant microbiome. Plasmid. 2023;127:102695.
Maheshwari M, Abulreesh HH, Khan MS, Ahmad I, Pichtel J. Horizontal gene transfer in soil and the rhizosphere: impact on ecological fitness of bacteria. In: Agriculturally important microbes for sustainable agriculture, vol. 1. 2017. p. 111–30.
Glickmann E, Gardan L, Jacquet S, Hussain S, Elasri M, Petit A, Dessaux Y. Auxin production is a common feature of most pathovars of Pseudomonas syringae. 2007. 11:156–162. https://doi.org/10.1094/MPMI1998112156.
Fry SC. Cellulases, hemicelluloses and auxin-stimulated growth: a possible relationship. Physiol Plant. 1989;75:532–6.
Goldberg R. Cell wall polysaccharidase activities and growth processes: a possible relationship. Physiol Plant. 1980;50:261–4.
Brandl MT, Lindow SE. Contribution of indole-3-acetic acid production to the epiphytic fitness of Erwinia herbicola. Appl Environ Microbiol. 1998;64:3256.
Tanaka Y, Sano T, Tamaoki M, Nakajima N, Kondo N, Hasezawa S. Cytokinin and auxin inhibit abscisic acid-induced stomatal closure by enhancing ethylene production in Arabidopsis. J Exp Bot. 2006;57:2259–66.
Mathew SA, Helander M, Saikkonen K, Vankova R, Dobrev PI, Dirihan S, Fuchs B. Epichloë endophytes shape the foliar endophytic fungal microbiome and alter the auxin and salicylic acid phytohormone levels in two meadow fescue cultivars. Journal of Fungi. 2023;9:90.
Petkova M, Petrova S, Spasova-Apostolova V, Naydenov M. Tobacco plant growth-promoting and antifungal activities of three endophytic yeast strains. Plants. 2022;11:751.
Nutaratat P, Srisuk N, Arunrattiyakorn P, Limtong S. Plant growth-promoting traits of epiphytic and endophytic yeasts isolated from rice and sugar cane leaves in Thailand. Fungal Biol. 2014;118:683–94.
Streletskii RA, Kachalkin AV, Glushakova AM, Yurkov AM, Demin VV. Yeasts producing zeatin. PeerJ. 2019;2019:e6474.
Soponputtaporn S, Srithaworn M, Promnuan Y, Srirat P, Chunhachart O. Indole-3-acetic acid producing yeasts in the phyllosphere of legumes: benefits for chili growth. Trends Sci. 2024;21:7335.
Dulla G, Lindow SE. Quorum size of Pseudomonas syringae is small and dictated by water availability on the leaf surface. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008;105:3082–7.
Alsanius BW, Vaas L, Gharaie S, Karlsson ME, Rosberg AK, Wohanka W, Khalil S, Windstam S. Dining in blue light impairs the appetite of some leaf epiphytes. Front Microbiol. 2021;12:725021.
Oso S, Fuchs F, Übermuth C, Zander L, Daunaraviciute S, Remus D, Stötzel I, Wüst M, Schreiber L, Remus-Emsermann M. Characterisation of the biosurfactants from phyllosphere colonising Pseudomonads and their effect on plant colonisation and diesel degradation. 2020. bioRxiv 2020.10.27.358416
Burch AY, Zeisler V, Yokota K, Schreiber L, Lindow SE. The hygroscopic biosurfactant syringafactin produced by Pseudomonas syringae enhances fitness on leaf surfaces during fluctuating humidity. Environ Microbiol. 2014;16:2086–98.
Hutchison ML, Tester MA, Gross DC. Role of biosurfactant and ion channel-forming activities of syringomycin in transmembrane ion flux: a model for the mechanism of action in the plant-pathogen interaction. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 1995;8:610–20.
Quigley NB, Gross DC. Syringomycin production among strains of Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae: conservation of the syrB and syrD genes and activation of phytotoxin production by plant signal molecules. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 1994;7:78–90.
de Souza LMD, Barreto DLC, da Costa Coelho L, et al. Fungal biosurfactants. In: Biosurfactants and sustainability: from biorefineries production to versatile applications. 2023. p. 243–54.
Piegza M, Szura K, Łaba W. Trichoderma citrinoviride: anti-fungal biosurfactants production characteristics. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2021;9:778701.
de Luna JM, Sarubbo L, de Campos-Takaki GM. A new biosurfactant produced by Candida glabrata UCP 1002: characteristics of stability and application in oil recovery. Braz Arch Biol Technol. 2009;52:785–93.
Kou Y, Naqvi NI. Surface sensing and signaling networks in plant pathogenic fungi. Semin Cell Dev Biol. 2016;57:84–92.
Ueda H, Kurose D, Kugimiya S, Mitsuhara I, Yoshida S, Tabata J, Suzuki K, Kitamoto H. Disease severity enhancement by an esterase from non-phytopathogenic yeast Pseudozyma antarctica and its potential as adjuvant for biocontrol agents. Sci Rep. 2018;8:16455.
Confer AW, Ayalew S. The OmpA family of proteins: roles in bacterial pathogenesis and immunity. Vet Microbiol. 2013;163:207–22.
Karamanoli K, Lindow SE. Disruption of N-acyl homoserine lactone-mediated cell signaling and iron acquisition in epiphytic bacteria by leaf surface compounds. Appl Environ Microbiol. 2006;72:7678–86.
Sanhueza T, Herrera H, Arriagada C. Microbial antagonism against phytopathogenic Botrytis cinerea in highbush blueberry (Vaccinium corymbosum L.) cultivars. Contribution of leaf-associated microorganisms from native Andean Ericaceae. 2022. https://doi.org/10.21203/RS.3.RS-2039166/V1.
Gvozdiak RI, Lukach MI. Epiphytic phase of Erwinia amylovora and Pseudomonas syringae pv. syringae on orchard weeds. Mikrobiol Z. 2001;63:43–50.
An SQ, Potnis N, Dow M, et al. Mechanistic insights into host adaptation, virulence and epidemiology of the phytopathogen Xanthomonas. FEMS Microbiol Rev. 2020;44:1–32.
Sesma A, Aizpún MT, Ortiz-Barredo A, Arnold D, Vivian A, Murillo J. Virulence determinants other than coronatine in Pseudomonas syringae pv. tomato PT23 are plasmid-encoded. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2001;58:83–93.
Rohmer L, Kjemtrup S, Marchesini P, Dangl JL. Nucleotide sequence, functional characterization and evolution of pFKN, a virulence plasmid in Pseudomonas syringae pathovar maculicola. Mol Microbiol. 2003;47:1545–62.
Jackson RW, Athanassopoulos E, Tsiamis G, Mansfield JW, Sesma A, Arnold DL, Gibbon MJ, Murillo J, Taylor JD, Vivian A. Identification of a pathogenicity island, which contains genes for virulence and avirulence, on a large native plasmid in the bean pathogen Pseudomonas syringae pathovar phaseolicola. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999;96:10875–80.
Friesen TL, Stukenbrock EH, Liu Z, Meinhardt S, Ling H, Faris JD, Rasmussen JB, Solomon PS, McDonald BA, Oliver RP. Emergence of a new disease as a result of interspecific virulence gene transfer. Nat Genet. 2006;38(8):953–6.
Ruiz A, Herráez M, Costa-Gutierrez SB, Molina-Henares MA, Martínez MJ, Espinosa-Urgel M, Barriuso J. The architecture of a mixed fungal–bacterial biofilm is modulated by quorum-sensing signals. Environ Microbiol. 2021;23:2433–47.
Liu H, Zhang M, Xu L, Xue FR, Chen W, Wang C. Unlocking fungal quorum sensing: oxylipins and yeast interactions enhance secondary metabolism in monascus. Heliyon. 2024. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e31619.
De Clerck C, Josselin L, Vangoethem V, Lassois L, Fauconnier ML, Jijakli H. Weapons against themselves: identification and use of quorum sensing volatile molecules to control plant pathogenic fungi growth. Microorganisms. 2022;10:2459.
Pusey PL, Stockwell VO, Reardon CL, Smits THM, Duffy B. Antibiosis activity of Pantoea agglomerans biocontrol strain E325 against Erwinia amylovora on apple flower stigmas. 2011. 101:1234–1241. https://doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-09-10-0253.
Eitzen K, Sengupta P, Kroll S, Kemen E, Doehlemann G. A fungal member of the arabidopsis thaliana phyllosphere antagonizes Albugo laibachii via a GH25 lysozyme. Elife. 2021;10:1.
Chen Y, Wang J, Yang N, Wen Z, Sun X, Chai Y, Ma Z. Wheat microbiome bacteria can reduce virulence of a plant pathogenic fungus by altering histone acetylation. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):1–14.
Tyc O, van den Berg M, Gerards S, van Veen JA, Raaijmakers JM, de Boer W, Garbeva P. Impact of interspecific interactions on antimicrobial activity among soil bacteria. Front Microbiol. 2014;5:115901.
Kroll S, Agler MT, Kemen E. Genomic dissection of host–microbe and microbe–microbe interactions for advanced plant breeding. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2017;36:71–8.
Legein M, Smets W, Vandenheuvel D, Eilers T, Muyshondt B, Prinsen E, Samson R, Lebeer S. Modes of action of microbial biocontrol in the phyllosphere. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:544057.
Zabka V, Stangl M, Bringmann G, Vogg G, Riederer M, Hildebrandt U. Host surface properties affect prepenetration processes in the barley powdery mildew fungus. New Phytol. 2008;177:251–63.
Mapuranga J, Zhang N, Zhang L, Chang J, Yang W. Infection strategies and pathogenicity of biotrophic plant fungal pathogens. Front Microbiol. 2022;13:799396.
Eseola AB, Ryder LS, Osés-Ruiz M, Findlay K, Yan X, Cruz-Mireles N, Molinari C, Garduño-Rosales M, Talbot NJ. Investigating the cell and developmental biology of plant infection by the rice blast fungus Magnaporthe oryzae. Fungal Genet Biol. 2021;154:103562.
Ryder LS, Talbot NJ. Regulation of appressorium development in pathogenic fungi. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2015;26:8–13.
Mendgen K, Hahn M, Deising H. Morphogenesis and mechanisms of penetration by plant pathogenic fungi. 2003;34:367–386. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto341367.
Chethana KWT, Jayawardena RS, Chen YJ, et al. Appressorial interactions with host and their evolution. Fungal Divers. 2021;110(1):75–107.
Brand A, Gow NA. Mechanisms of hypha orientation of fungi. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2009;12:350.
Wilson RA, Talbot NJ. Under pressure: investigating the biology of plant infection by Magnaporthe oryzae. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2009;7(3):185–95.
Carver TLW, Gurr SJ. Filamentous fungi on plant surfaces. In: Annual plant reviews online. Chicester: Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2018. p. 368–97.
Mayfield DA, Karakaya A, Batzer JC, Blaser JM, Gleason ML. Diversity of sooty blotch and flyspeck fungi from apples in northeastern Turkey. Eur J Plant Pathol. 2013;135:805–15.
Fones H, Gurr S. The impact of Septoria tritici blotch disease on wheat: an EU perspective. Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;79:3–7.
Goodwin SB, Ben MS, Dhillon B, et al. Finished genome of the fungal wheat pathogen Mycosphaerella graminicola reveals dispensome structure, chromosome plasticity, and stealth pathogenesis. PLoS Genet. 2011. https://doi.org/10.1371/JOURNAL.PGEN.1002070.
Kema GHJ, Yu DZ, Rijkenberg FHJ, Shaw MW, Baayen RP. Histology of the pathogenesis of Mycosphaerella graminicola in wheat. Phytopathology. 1996;86:777–86.
Cousin A, Mehrabi R, Guilleroux M, Dufresne M, Van Der Lee T, Waalwijk C, Langin T, Kema GHJ. The MAP kinase-encoding gene MgFus3 of the non-appressorium phytopathogen Mycosphaerella graminicola is required for penetration and in vitro pycnidia formation. Mol Plant Pathol. 2006;7:269–78.
Sánchez-Vallet A, McDonald MC, Solomon PS, McDonald BA. Is Zymoseptoria tritici a hemibiotroph? Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;79:29–32.
Orton ES, Deller S, Brown JKM. Mycosphaerella graminicola: from genomics to disease control. Mol Plant Pathol. 2011;12:413–24.
Rudd JJ, Kanyuka K, Hassani-Pak K, et al. Transcriptome and metabolite profiling of the infection cycle of Zymoseptoria tritici on wheat reveals a biphasic interaction with plant immunity involving differential pathogen chromosomal contributions and a variation on the hemibiotrophic lifestyle definition. Plant Physiol. 2015;167:1158–85.
Fones HN, Eyles CJ, Kay W, Cowper J, Gurr SJ. A role for random, humidity-dependent epiphytic growth prior to invasion of wheat by Zymoseptoria tritici. Fungal Genet Biol. 2017;106:51–60.
Shetty NP, Kristensen BK, Newmana MA, Møller K, Gregersen PL, Jørgensen HJL. Association of hydrogen peroxide with restriction of Septoria tritici in resistant wheat. Physiol Mol Plant Pathol. 2003;6:333–46.
Fones HN. Presence of ice-nucleating Pseudomonas on wheat leaves promotes Septoria tritici blotch disease (Zymoseptoria tritici) via a mutually beneficial interaction. Sci Rep. 2020;10(1):1–9.
Fantozzi E, Kilaru S, Gurr SJ, Steinberg G. Asynchronous development of Zymoseptoria tritici infection in wheat. Fungal Genet Biol. 2021;146:103504.
Haueisen J, Möller M, Eschenbrenner CJ, Grandaubert J, Seybold H, Adamiak H, Stukenbrock EH. Highly flexible infection programs in a specialized wheat pathogen. Ecol Evol. 2019;9:275–94.
Francisco CS, Ma X, Zwyssig MM, McDonald BA, Palma-Guerrero J. Morphological changes in response to environmental stresses in the fungal plant pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. Sci Rep. 2019;9(1):1–18.
Fones HN, Soanes D, Gurr SJ. Epiphytic proliferation of Zymoseptoria tritici isolates on resistant wheat leaves. Fungal Genet Biol. 2023;168:103822.
Jung B, Kim S, Lee J. Microcyle conidiation in filamentous fungi. Mycobiology. 2014;42:1.
Orellana-Torrejon C, Vidal T, Gazeau G, Boixel AL, Gélisse S, Lageyre J, Saint-Jean S, Suffert F. Multiple scenarios for sexual crosses in the fungal pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici on wheat residues: potential consequences for virulence gene transmission. Fungal Genet Biol. 2022;163:103744.
Suffert F, Delestre G, Carpentier F, Gazeau G, Walker AS, Gélisse S, Duplaix C. Fashionably late partners have more fruitful encounters: impact of the timing of co-infection and pathogenicity on sexual reproduction in Zymoseptoria tritici. Fungal Genet Biol. 2016;92:40–9.
Duncan KE, Howard RJ. Cytological analysis of wheat infection by the leaf blotch pathogen Mycosphaerella graminicola. Mycol Res. 2000;104:1074–82.
Keon J, Rudd JJ, Antoniw J, Skinner W, Hargreaves J, Hammond-Kosack K. Metabolic and stress adaptation by Mycosphaerella graminicola during sporulation in its host revealed through microarray transcription profiling. Mol Plant Pathol. 2005;6:527–40.
Mirzadi Gohari A, Ware SB, Wittenberg AHJ, et al. Effector discovery in the fungal wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. Mol Plant Pathol. 2015;16:931–45.
McDonald MC, McDonald BA, Solomon PS. Recent advances in the Zymoseptoria tritici–wheat interaction: insights from pathogenomics. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:133904.
Kilaru S, Ma W, Schuster M, Courbot M, Steinberg G. Conditional promoters for analysis of essential genes in Zymoseptoria tritici. Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;79:166–73.
Fagundes WC, Haueisen J, Stukenbrock EH. Dissecting the biology of the fungal wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici: a laboratory workflow. Curr Protoc Microbiol. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/CPMC.128.
Kay WT. Novel insights into the asexual life-cycle of the wheat-leaf pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. 2015.
Kilaru S, Fantozzi E, Cannon S, Schuster M, Chaloner TM, Guiu-Aragones C, Gurr SJ, Steinberg G. Zymoseptoria tritici white-collar complex integrates light, temperature and plant cues to initiate dimorphism and pathogenesis. Nat Commun. 2022;13(1):1–21.
Kilaru S, Schuster M, Ma W, Steinberg G. Fluorescent markers of various organelles in the wheat pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici. Fungal Genet Biol. 2017;105:16–27.
Kilaru S, Schuster M, Latz M, Das Gupta S, Steinberg N, Fones H, Gurr SJ, Talbot NJ, Steinberg G. A gene locus for targeted ectopic gene integration in Zymoseptoria tritici. Fungal Genet Biol. 2015;79:118–24.
Seybold H, Demetrowitsch TJ, Hassani MA, et al. A fungal pathogen induces systemic susceptibility and systemic shifts in wheat metabolome and microbiome composition. Nat Commun. 2020;11(1):1–12.
Palma-Guerrero J, Torriani SFF, Zala M, Carter D, Courbot M, Rudd JJ, McDonald BA, Croll D. Comparative transcriptomic analyses of Zymoseptoria tritici strains show complex lifestyle transitions and intraspecific variability in transcription profiles. Mol Plant Pathol. 2016;17:845–59.
Yang F, Li W, Derbyshire M, Larsen MR, Rudd JJ, Palmisano G. Unraveling incompatibility between wheat and the fungal pathogen Zymoseptoria tritici through apoplastic proteomics. BMC Genomics. 2015;16:1–12.
Yang F, Li W, Jørgensen HJL. Transcriptional reprogramming of wheat and the hemibiotrophic pathogen Septoria tritici during two phases of the compatible interaction. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e81606.
Rohel EA, Payne AC, Fraaije BA, Hollomon DW. Exploring infection of wheat and carbohydrate metabolism in Mycosphaerella graminicola transformants with differentially regulated green fluorescent protein expression. Mol Plant Microbe Interact. 2001;14:156–63.