Next Article in Journal
Role of Benzoic Acid and Lettucenin A in the Defense Response of Lettuce against Soil-Borne Pathogens
Previous Article in Journal
Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Huberia peruviana Cogn. Methanol Extract by Inhibiting Src Activity in the NF-κB Pathway
Previous Article in Special Issue
The Role of Aquaporin Overexpression in the Modulation of Transcription of Heavy Metal Transporters under Cadmium Treatment in Poplar
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/plants10112334
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress

by
Veronika N. Pishchik
1,2,*,
Polina S. Filippova
3,
Galina V. Mirskaya
2,
Yuriy V. Khomyakov
2,
Vitaliy E. Vertebny
2,
Viktoriya I. Dubovitskaya
2,
Yuliya V. Ostankova
4,
Aleksandr V. Semenov
5,
Debasis Chakrabarty
6,
Evgeny V. Zuev
7 and
Vladimir K. Chebotar
1,*
1
All-Russia Research Institute for Agricultural Microbiology, Podbelskogo hwy, 3, Pushkin, 196608 St. Petersburg, Russia
2
Agrophysical Scientific Research Institute, Grazhdansky pr. 14, 195220 St. Petersburg, Russia
3
St. Petersburg Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences, North-West Centre of Interdisciplinary Researches of Problems of Food Maintenance, Podbelskogo hwy, 7, Pushkin, 196608 St. Petersburg, Russia
4
St. Petersburg Pasteur Institute, Federal Service for the Oversight of Consumer Protection and Welfare, 14, Mira Str., 197101 St. Petersburg, Russia
5
Yekaterinburg Research Institute of Viral Infections, The Federal Budgetary Institution of Science “State Scientific Center of Virology and Biotechnology Vector”, The Federal Service for Supervision of Consumer Rights Protection and Human Well-Being, 23, Letnyay Str., 620030 Yekaterinburg, Russia
6
CSIR-National Botanical Research Institute, Rana Pratap Marg, Lucknow 22600, India
7
Federal Research Center N. I. Vavilov, All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources, Bolshaya Morskaya Str., 42-44, 190000 St. Petersburg, Russia
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(11), 2334; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112334
Submission received: 31 August 2021 / Revised: 22 October 2021 / Accepted: 25 October 2021 / Published: 29 October 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant Growth and Development under Metal Stress)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The present study demonstrates the Ni toxicity-ameliorating and growth-promoting abilities of two different bacterial isolates when applied to wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as the host plant. Two bacterial strains tolerant to Ni stress were isolated from wheat seeds and selected based on their ability to improve the germination of wheat plants; they were identified as Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2. The protective effects of these epiphytic bacteria against Ni stress were studied in model experiments with two wheat cultivars: Ni stress-tolerant Leningradskaya 6 and susceptible Chinese spring. When these isolates were used as the inoculants applied to Ni-treated wheat plants, the growth parameters and the levels of photosynthetic pigments of the two wheat cultivars both under normal and Ni-stress conditions were increased, though B. megaterium AFI1 had a more pronounced ameliorative effect on the Ni contents in plant tissues due to its synthesis of siderophores. Over the 10 days of Ni exposure, the plant growth promotion bacteria (PGPB) significantly reduced the lipid peroxidation (LPO), ascorbate peroxidase (APX), superoxide dismutase (SOD) activities and proline content in the leaves of both wheat cultivars. The PGPB also increased peroxidase (POX) activity and the levels of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and carotenoids in the wheat leaves. It was concluded that B. megaterium AFI1 is an ideal candidate for bioremediation and wheat growth promotion against Ni-induced oxidative stress, as it increases photosynthetic pigment contents, induces the antioxidant defense system, and lowers Ni metal uptake.

Graphical Abstract

1. Introduction

The contamination of soil with Ni and other heavy metals (HM) due to wastes from heavy industry and nonferrous metallurgy is a major environmental concern [1,2]. The concentration of Ni ions in polluted soils can reach 20–26 times higher levels compared to native soils [3,4]. Excess Ni accumulates in agricultural products due to the increasing pollution of agricultural lands [5,6]. Ni in high concentrations is toxic to plants, which manifests as the inhibition of plant growth, metabolic disorders, and oxidative stress [6]. High concentrations of Ni trigger the formation of excessive amounts of reactive oxygen species in plants [7], which leads to changes in antioxidant activities [8,9], disruptions of the nucleus structure [10] and antimitotic and genotoxic actions [11]. Ni in toxic concentrations disrupts water balance [12], membrane functions and carbohydrate metabolism [13], and reduces photosynthesis [14] and plant yields [15]. Ni toxicity in plants can cause Ni-induced stress through the accumulation of hydrogen peroxide and the related lipid peroxidation [16,17]. The generation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which results in oxidative stress [18,19], is one important aspect of toxicity that ultimately induces the plant defense system [18,20,21]. Ni can both induce and inhibit the activity of antioxidative enzymes [22]. Increasing GPX and SOD activities in Amaranthus paniculatus [23], CAT, POD and SOD activities in Lactuca sativa L. [24], SOD, POD, CAT and APX activities in Alyssum inflatum Nyár. [25], as well as APX activities in pea leaves were reported [26], while the suppressed activity of CAT, APX, and SOD was reported in Alyssum bertolonii [27], Triticum aestivum L. [28] and Grewia asiatica L. [29].
PGPB may enhance the growth and tolerance of plants under Ni stress [30,31,32]. PGPB can eliminate HM toxicity via multiple mechanisms [33,34,35] changes in the pH and redox potential of the media, and the production of siderophores, polysaccharides and various antioxidant enzymes [36].
Bacteria from the genera Bacillus and Paenibacillus live both on the surface of the aboveground organs of plants and on their roots [37]. They promote plant growth, due to the production of phytohormones, siderophores, lipopeptides, polysaccharides and enzymes [38]. These bacteria are promising candidates for Ni and other kinds of HM bioremediation [2,39,40,41,42,43].
Many studies have shown that PGPB improve plant growth and plant defense systems when under Ni stress [44,45]. However, while the mechanisms of heavy metal tolerance in plants have been studied extensively, the role of PGPB in the regulation of metal translocation in plants remains undetermined [46,47]. There is also no information about the responses of the in vivo activities of the SOD, APX and POX pathways under metal excess, or the possible effects of PGPB inoculation under Ni stress.
We hypothesized that PGPB can affect the plant defense system and help plants to overcome Ni stress. The main objectives were to evaluate the effects of two epiphytic PGPB, Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2, on the growth and antioxidant response of two soft spring wheat cultivars (contrasting to Ni-tolerance) under Ni exposure.

2. Results

2.1. Bacterial Identification

The cells of bacterium AFI1 are Gram-positive, motile, and produce endospores. Their colonies are round, white, and smooth when grown on LB agar. The bacterium is catalase-positive and oxidase-negative; indole and H2S are not produced. The Voges—Proskauer reaction is negative. The bacterium can utilize glucose, arabinose, xylose, maltose, sucrose, sorbitol, mannitol, glycerol, lactate, citrate and butyrate. It does not contain ornithine decarboxylase, lysine decarboxylase or arginine dihydrolase. The bacterium can utilize histidine as a nitrogen source but cannot utilize alanine or proline. The bacterium AFI1 hydrolyzes casein, gelatin and aesculin, but cannot hydrolyze starch.
The cells of bacterium AFI2 are Gram-positive, motile and produce endospores. Grown on LB agar, it forms round, pink and smooth colonies. AFI2 is catalase-positive and oxidase-negative; indole and H2S are not produced. The Voges—Proskauer reaction is negative. The bacterium does not contain ornithine decarboxylase, lysine decarboxylase or arginine dihydrolase. It can utilize glucose, arabinose, xylose, maltose, sucrose, ribose, galactose, mannitol and alanine, but cannot utilize lactate, citrate, butyrate, histidine and glycerol. The bacterium hydrolyzes casein, gelatin and aesculin, but does not hydrolyze starch. The biochemical and physiological characteristics of the studied bacterial strains are summarized in Table S1 [48,49,50].
The strain AFI1 produced siderophores, polysaccharides and phytohormones. The strain AFI2 produced polysaccharides and more phytohormones compared to AFI1, but did not produce siderophores (Table 1).

2.2. 16 S rRNA Sequencing of PGPB

The sequences were submitted to the NCBI databases with accession numbers MZ468613 (1554 bp) for Priestia megaterium (the new species name for Bacillus megaterium after [51]) (strain AFI1) and MZ468614 (1552 bp) for Paenibacillus nicotianae (strain AFI2). Even though the bacteria Bacillus megaterium were recently renamed Priestia megaterium (Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Taxonomy/Browser/wwwtax.cgi?id=1404 (accessed date: 26 October 2021)), in our article, we will use the previous classification, and describe the strain AFI1 as Bacillus megaterium.
Based on the EzTaxon-e server results of 16S rRNA gene sequence similarity, AFI1 showed the closest similarity (99%) to the Bacillus species, such as Bacillus aryaabhattai B8W22 (99.93%), Bacillus megaterium ATCC 14581 (99.8%), and Bacillus zanthoxyli strain 1433 (99.86%). Lower sequence similarities were found with Bacillus flexus NBRC 15715 (98.82%) and Bacillus simplex DSM 1321 (98.54%).
The phylogenetic tree (Figure 1) shows that AFI1 (MZ468613) clustered within the genus Bacillus and joined with the nearest neighbor Bacillus megaterium KM654562, which is described as a Ni-tolerant bacterium [52].
After a comparison of the nucleotide sequences of 16S rRNA genes, the greatest similarity was found with Paenibacillus nicotianae YIM-19 (98.84%), Paenibacillus kyungheensis DCY-88 (98.4%) and Paenibacillus hordei RH-N24 (98.03%). The phylogenetic tree (Figure 2) shows that AFI2 (MZ468614) clustered with Paenibacillus kyungheensis KF 793934 and with Paenibacillus nicotianae (68%).
Based on the morphological and biochemical characteristics as well as the data of 16S rRNA genes, we identified AFI1 as Bacillus megaterium AFI1 (B. megaterium AFI1) and AFI2 as Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 (P. nicotianae AFI2).

2.3. Effect of Ni and PGPB on Wheat Growth

B. megaterium AFI1 and P. nicotianae AFI2 significantly increased the lengths of shoots sensitive to Ni stress in the cultivar Chinese spring (hereinafter Ch. Spring S) by 22.7% and 21.1%, respectively. The values of these parameters for tolerant cultivar Leningradskaya 6 (hereinafter Leningrad. 6 T) were 10% and 6.1% (Table 2, Figures S1 and S2).
However, the opposite situation for seedling roots was noted: PGPB increased the growth of roots of Leningrad. 6 T considerably more noticeably (by 55.5% and 33.9%) than those of Ch. spring S (by 9.3% and 2.8%, respectively). In general, the increase in the root FW of Ch. spring S was more pronounced and was associated with more intensive root formation after inoculation with PGPB.
The wheat Ch. spring S was more responsive to bacterial inoculation in the control variants (without a toxic Ni concentration). PGPB had greater effects on the shoot length, as well as on the shoot and root FWs, of seedlings of Ch. Spring S. The greatest root growth in Leningrad. 6 T was registered after inoculation with PGPB.
The wheat Ch. spring S was more sensitive to the presence of toxic Ni ions. The shoot length in the seedlings Ch. spring S was reduced by 36.5%, and in the seedlings of Leningrad. 6 by 17%. The root FWs of Ch. spring S were more susceptible to high concentrations of Ni (reduced by 50%), while those of cv. Leningrad. 6 decreased by 44%. Chlorosis symptoms reflecting a reduction in chl contents were observed in the middle of the vegetation period.
Inoculation with B. megaterium AFI 1 under Ni stress increased shoot lengths in both cultivars: Ch. spring S by 6.9% and Leningrad. 6 T by 8.6%, compared to Ni-treated plants. The effects of P. nicotianae AFI2 under Ni stress were more visible: the shoot lengths were increased in Ch. spring S by 13.7% and in Leningrad. 6 T by 14.7% compared to Ni-treated plants. The maximal increase in root FW was obtained after inoculation with P. nicotianae in AFI2 Ch. spring S compared to Ni-treated plants (without inoculation).

2.4. Ni Accumulation

The data shown in Figure 3 suggest that Ni ions accumulated in wheat tissues in small concentrations under control conditions (without Ni). Both inoculants decreased the Ni content in the roots and shoots of both wheat cultivars under control conditions; however, the most visible effect was registered in the roots of cv. Leningrad.6.
Under Ni exposure, the wheat cultivars accumulated varying amounts of Ni ions in their plant tissues (Figure 3). Leningrad. 6 T accumulated 34.5% less Ni in the roots and 25.2% less in the shoots compared to Ch. spring S (Figure 3).
Figure shows the results after 10 days of exposure to Ni. Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. DW—dry weight of shoots and roots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments (for shoots and roots, respectively) at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
The concentration of Ni ions in the wheat roots after 10 days of Ni exposure was significantly higher than in the shoots. B. megaterium AFI1 significantly reduced Ni content in both the roots and shoots. Leningrad. 6 T was more responsive to inoculation with B. megaterium AFI1: the Ni content in the shoots of Leningrad. 6 T decreased by 35.2%, and that in Ch. spring S decreased by 31.7%.
The inoculation with P. nicotianae AFI2 slightly reduced the Ni content in the shoots of Leningrad. 6 T, by 12%, and reduced it by 7.6% in Ch. spring S.

2.5. Chlorophyll and Carotenoid Content

Inoculation with P. nicotianae AFI2 increased the total chlorophyll (chl) level to 20.9% and that of carotenoids (car) to 30%, in Ch. spring S (Table 3). Nickel had a more pronounced negative effect on chlorophyll a (Figure 3). There were no significant changes in chl or car contents in Leningrad. 6 T when inoculated with PGPB. Leningrad. 6 T contained more chl and car compared to the sensitive Ch. spring S under control conditions. A statistically significant reduction in chl and car contents was observed under Ni stress.
After Ni exposure, the total chl content decreased by 21.6% in Ch. spring S and by 34.3% in Leningrad. 6 T (Table 3), while the total car content decreased by 12.1% and 24.6%, respectively (Figure 4).
Figure shows the results after 10 days of exposure to Ni. Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. FW—fresh weight of shoots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
The change in the ratio of chl a/b was more pronounced in Ch. spring S under Ni stress, where it increased by 20.8% (in Leningrad. 6 T, it increased by 12%) (Table 3). Applying PGPB under Ni stress conditions significantly increased the total chl and car contents and decreased the Ni stress load on the wheat plants.
PGPB had a more pronounced effect on the more tolerant Leningrad. 6 T under Ni stress conditions.

2.6. Antioxidant Enzymes Responses

The antioxidant enzymes responses after 10 days of Ni exposure and inoculation with PGPB are presented in Table 4 and Table 5. The changes in enzyme activity depending on nickel exposure time (3, 6 days) are presented in Tables S2–S6.
As shown in our experiments, Ch. spring S was characterized by a higher level of SOD and by lower CAT activity in the roots compared to Leningrad. 6 T under control conditions. PGPB reduced the CAT activity in the roots of both wheat cultivars by 14.9–25.5% in Ch. spring S and by 10.9–21.5% in Leningrad.6 T and did not significantly affect CAT activity in the shoots on day 10 of Ni exposure (Table 4). However, it was shown that the level of CAT increased during Ni exposure. After 6 and 10 days of Ni exposure, the level of CAT increased by about 30% in the shoots. The PGPB significantly reduced the level of CAT in the roots of both wheat cultivars under Ni stress but increased the CAT in the shoots (significantly for Ch. spring S and insignificantly for Leningrad. 6 T) (Table S2). Different levels of change in SOD activity under Ni stress were registered in both shoots and roots. Under Ni exposure, SOD increased significantly in the roots of both cultivars, by 19% in Ch. spring S and by 26.3% in Leningrad. 6 T. Application of PGPB under Ni stress conditions reduced the SOD level in the roots of both wheat cultivars by 16.4 and 17.8%, respectively. The SOD in the roots did not change significantly throughout Ni exposure, while the SOD in the shoots increased by 30–50% on 6th and 10th days of experiments (Table S3).
The toxic concentration of Ni ions had the most pronounced effect on the activities of both POX and APX in wheat plants. Under Ni stress, the POX increased by 88.7% in the roots of Ch. spring S and by 54.3% in the roots Leningrad. 6 T. POX activity in shoots also increased under Ni stress in both wheat cultivars. There were no significant changes in POX activity in the wheat roots after inoculation with PGPB under Ni stress. In contrast, PGPB increased the POX activity in the shoots of both cultivars under Ni stress (Table 5). The POX activity significantly increased in the shoots of both the cultivars studied (from 3rd day to 10th) in each variant. In wheat roots, POX slightly increased from the 3rd day to the 10th (Table S4). The APX significantly increased in the wheat roots and shoots in both cultivars under Ni stress. The application of PGPB under Ni exposure caused a significant decrease in APX: by 14.4–27.3% in the roots of Ch. spring S and by 9.2–13.7% in the roots of Leningrad.6 T, as compared to the variant with Ni alone. In the shoots of Ch. spring S, inoculation with bacteria under Ni stress conditions reduced the level of APX by 52.7–56.7%, while in the shoots of Leningrad. 6 T this level was reduced by 36.3–37.9% (Table 5). The APX in the roots and shoots of both wheat cultivars increased slightly during Ni exposure. Application of B. megaterium AFI1 and P. nicotianae AFI2 significantly reduced the APX in the roots and shoots of both wheat cultivars, with a greater impact on the wheat shoots (Table S5).

2.7. LPO

One of the metabolites of lipid peroxidation is malondialdehyde (MDA), an increase in which shows that plants are subjected to oxidative stress. Ch. spring S showed higher LPO activity compared to Leningrad. 6 T under normal conditions. Ni stress significantly increased the MDA content in both studied cultivars; while they differed in terms of Ni resistance, Ch. spring S was more affected by Ni stress.
Bacteria had a similar protective effect on the MDA content in the two studied cultivars under Ni stress. PGPB under Ni stress increased membrane resistance to Ni, and reduced the MDA content in roots by 22.8–41.7% and in shoots by 15.8–21.5%. The protective effect of PGPB was more pronounced in Ch. spring S (Figure 5). The MDA was content significantly decreased in both wheat cultivars, with an increase in the duration of Ni stress (from 3 days up to 10 days). The action of PGPB was similar at all studied time points (Table S6).
Figure shows the results after 10 days of exposure to Ni. Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. FW—fresh weight of shoots and roots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters (a, b, c, d) show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.

2.8. Proline

The content of proline was increased by 57% in the shoots of Leningrad. 6 T and by 82.8% in the shoots of Ch. spring S under Ni stress compared to control conditions. PGPB reduced proline level in the shoots of both cultivars studied under control conditions, but bacterial effect was more pronounced under the influence of Ni stress. Thus PGPB B. megaterium AFI1 and P. nicotianae AFI2 reduced proline level in the shoots of Leningrad. 6 T and Ch. spring S by 30.7–35.1% and by 18.1–25.8% as compared to the control, respectively (Figure 6). PGPB under Ni stress reduced proline content by 30.9–32.2% in shoots Leningrad. 6 T and by 25.1–26.7% in shoots Ch. spring S as compared to Ni alone.
Figure shows the results after 10 days of exposure to Ni. Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. FW—fresh weight of shoots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.

3. Discussion

Ni at a minimal toxic concentration (100 µML−1) inhibited wheat growth and reduced plant biomass (Table 2). Plant growth inhibition under Ni stress is associated with the disturbance of transpiration and water balance [53,54], with a decreased cell division rate [55] and the disruption of nutrient absorption [36,39,56]. PGPB significantly increased plant growth both under control conditions and under Ni stress, with a more visible effect of P. nicotianae AFI2.
Ni stress increased the MDA content in both wheat cultivars (Figure 5), and this is associated with the cellular damage caused by the excess ROS production and the lower capacity for ROS elimination in the defense system, leading to the formation of MDA. The tolerant Leningrad. 6 T, in contrast with the sensitive cultivar, was characterized by a high level of POX and low LPO. Leningrad. 6 T showed greater growth and a lower Ni accumulation compared to Ch. spring S (Figure 3). Similarly low levels of LPO have been shown in wheat genotypes tolerant to drought [57], salinity [58] and water [59] stresses. The lower LPO in Leningrad. 6 T was accompanied by higher CAT and POX levels and lower SOD and APX activities (Table 4 and Table 5). However, the activities of SOD and APX were higher in the Ni-tolerant maize hybrid Pioneer [60]. While different genotypes of the same plant species have different levels of activity of antioxidant enzymes, tolerant genotypes are characterized by a high level of enzyme activity and a low level of LPO [18,44,57]. PGPB reduced the LPO in the roots and shoots of both wheat cultivars, protecting the plant membranes from destructions. It was also found that Bacillus subtilis decreased the LPO in wheat plants under abiotic stress [61,62].
In our study, different SOD responses to nickel stress in wheat roots and shoots have been observed. Under Ni stress, the SOD increased in the roots and decreased in the shoots of wheat plants in our experiments (Table 4). Differences have been identified in the level of TaSOD expression between wheat roots and leaves in response to salt stress [63]. However, there is evidence that Ni decreases SOD activities in both shoots and roots compared to the control [54]. It is possible that the differences in SOD reactions in the roots and leaves described in our experiments and in earlier studies [54] are determined by the characteristics of wheat cultivars. The roots of sessile plants are the first organs to encounter heavy metals, and thus, roots have been showing more severe effects in response to a stressor, leading to high SOD activities.
HM increased the activity of SOD in plants. The exposure of wheat plants to increased concentrations of municipal solid waste compost containing heavy metals such as Ni, Pb, Cu, and Zn stimulated the activity of SOD, providing tolerance to the plant under adverse conditions [64]. Metal stress has been reported to enhance the expressions of SOD genes (Fe-SOD, Cu/Zn-SOD) in soybean seedlings [65].
Ni increased the levels of proline and antioxidant enzymes such as SOD in Cicer arietinum, while inoculation with the PGPB Pseudomonas aeruginosa significantly reduced the level of these stress markers [42]. Increasing concentrations of Ni caused exponential increases in proline content in water lettuce plants [66].
The greatest changes were recorded in POX, the activity of which considerably increased in the shoots of both cultivars. Our results are consistent with previously obtained data showing the increase in POX activity in wheat shoots [67]. The level of CAT in the roots of Ch. spring S was significantly lower than that in the roots of Leningrad. 6 T. PGPB increased the POX levels even more significantly in both cultivars (Table 5).
PGPB significantly reduced the APX in roots and shoots and the CAT in the roots of both cultivars under Ni stress. In wheat, a mutant line with reduced activity of the thylakoid APX manifests a disruption of photosynthesis [68]. The activity of APX increases with an increase in the concentration of Fe and Cu in wheat seedlings [69]. Increased expressions of POD and APX genes were also recorded in perennial ryegrass in response to metal stress [69], indicating its role in H2O2 scavenging in the plant.
Antioxidant enzymes can increase or decrease in plants, depending on various abiotic stresses and the duration of stress exposure [31].
We found no change in CAT activity in wheat leaves under Ni stress. This is consistent with the results obtained for vetch plants [9]. The CAT genes respond differently to various stress conditions [70].
The balance between SODs, CATS and APXs is important for determining the intracellular level of ROS; in addition, changes in the balance of these enzymes appear to induce compensatory mechanisms [70,71].
Wheat cultivars accumulated different Ni contents in plant tissues. The tolerant Leningrad. 6 T cultivar accumulated less Ni than the sensitive cultivar (Figure 3). This finding agrees with the results obtained for tomato genotypes differing in Ni tolerance [44]. Similarly high Ni concentrations in wheat roots (828.20–1200 µg g−1 after exposure to Ni at concentrations of 50–100 µM) have been recorded by other authors [72,73].
Inoculation with PGPB indicated its plant growth potential as it increased plant growth and biomass in both wheat cultivars under control conditions and Ni stress. Both inoculants reduced the Ni contents in wheat plants. However, B. megaterium AFI1 decreased Ni content much more significantly (up to 34.5%) compared to P. nicotianae AFI2. This significant reduction in nickel is due to siderophores, which are known to bind nickel, making it inaccessible to plants [32,74,75,76,77].
Along with chelates, bacteria improve plant growth through the production of phytohormones. There are data indicating that the application of auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins generally leads to a reduction in Ni concentration in the shoots of Alissum and Noccaea species [78].
Both PGPB studied produced auxins, abscisic acid and gibberellins; however, P. nicotianae AFI2 was found to be a more effective producer. The effect of P. nicotianae AFI2 on wheat shoot growth was more visible (Table 2), while it reduced the Ni content in the plant to a much lower degree compared to B. megaterium AFI1 (up to 12%). This positive effect of P. nicotianae AFI2 was induced by the more active production of phytohormones and the nitrogen-fixing activity. P. nicotianae AFI2 possessed 2.8-fold greater ABA activity compared to B. megaterium AFI1 (Table 1). ABA signaling affects plants’ gibberellin and auxin signaling pathways and controls lateral root development under stress conditions [79]. ABA also regulates water misbalance in plants by controlling stomatal closure and stress signal transduction pathways [80]. Therefore, ABA-producing P. nicotianae AFI2 could improve the water misbalance caused by Ni stress. It was also found that ABA increased chlorophyll content; therefore, ABA-synthesizing bacteria may be responsible for the increase in chlorophyll content observed in our experiments [81].
One of the effects of nickel exposure is a reduction in the amount of iron in plants, which directly affects the photosynthetic pigments [82].
The photosynthetic pigments were increased in inoculated sorghum plants under HM stress by beneficial strains Alcaligenes faecalis MG257493.1, Bacillus cereus MG257494.1 and Alcaligenes faecalis MG966440.1 [83].
The toxic concentrations of Ni ions damage mesophyll cells, epidermal tissues, thylakoid membranes and chloroplast structure, contributing to the inhibition of photosynthetic pigment function in plants [13,84]. Chl and carotenoids are indirect biochemical indicators of photosynthetic activity [85]. The chl a/b ratio is expected to increase when the leaf N content decreases [86,87].
As shown in our experiments, Ni contributed to the change in the chlorophyll a/b ratio, significantly reducing the level of total chl, and mainly chlorophyll b (Table 3). The chl a/b ratio increased more noticeably in leaves of Ch. spring S, indicating the adverse effects of Ni on nitrogen content in plant leaves. These data confirm the findings of other researchers [54]. The chlorophyll a/b ratio increased by 14% in wheat leaves after exposure to 50 µM Ni for 7 days, with the content of chlorophyll b decreasing more significantly than that of chlorophyll a [54]. It is assumed that toxic concentrations of Ni ions damage mesophyll cells, epidermal tissues, thylakoid membrane and chloroplast structure, which contributes to the inhibition of photosynthetic pigments’ function in plants [8].
PGPB inoculation significantly increased the contents of chlorophylls a and b and carotenoids under Ni stress, and reduced the ratio of chlorophylls a/b, perhaps due to the enhanced uptake of mineral nutrients that stimulate the photosynthetic and antioxidant enzymes’ activities [88].
Chl content was also increased after the bacterial inoculation of tomato and maize under Ni stress [44,60,89]. Carotenoids and phenols may cause accumulations of H2O2 and active molecular oxygen, thus protecting against oxidative damage [90].
Further research in this direction is necessary. The complete elucidation of the mechanisms within the influence of B. megaterium AFI1 and P. nicotianae AFI2 on plants under Ni stress, including an analysis of the immobilizing metabolites released by these PGPB, is a promising direction of further studies.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Screening and Isolation of Ni-Resistant PGPB

PGPB bacteria were isolated from seeds of spring wheat cv. Leningrad. 6 T. Flasks containing 100 mL of sterile phosphate buffer and 10 g of wheat seeds were placed in an ultrasonic bath (Bandelin; 50 Hz) for 10 min. Then the phosphate buffer solution containing microorganisms washed from the grains was serially diluted. Then, 0.1 mL of various dilutions was inoculated on Petri dishes containing LB (Luria Bertani, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) agar medium with an addition of Ni cations at the concentration 100 µM·L−1 Ni2+. Then, the bacterial isolates were screened for PGP activity via the method described earlier [91] with some modifications. Sterile wheat seeds were dipped for 10 min into bacterial cultures containing 106 cells per mL. The seeds were placed in sterile Petri dishes (with filter paper and 10 mL of sterile water) with three replicates at 28 °C for 4 days. The lengths of seedlings (mm) of the treated and untreated (control) variants were measured. The two strains, AFI1 and AFI2 that showed the greatest plant growth promotion activity were selected for further study.

4.2. Bacterial Physiological and Biochemical Characteristics

The Gram reaction was determined using the Gram-staining method with the help of a bioMe’rieux Gram-staining kit. Cell morphology was examined by light-microscopy under a Zeiss light microscope (Zeiss, Berlin, Germany with 1000× magnification), while motility was assessed by the injection of bacterium into semi-liquid agar. Growth at +5 and +40 °C was assessed. NaCl (6%) tolerance was examined via growth on LB medium. Catalase activity was examined via the production of oxygen bubbles using H2O2 (3%, v/v), and the oxidase activity was detected using a commercial oxidase strip (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA). Production of acid was performed by the method in [92]. Utilization of D-glucose D-sucrose, maltose, arabinose, D-galactose, xylose, inositol, dulcitol, sorbitol, glycerol, mannitol were determined according to [91]. H2S production was determined according to [92]; indole production was assessed by the Ehrlich method [93]. The assimilation of 0.2% organic acids was assessed via growth on LB medium. The hydrolysis of casein, cellulose, starch and aesculin, H2S production, and methyl red and nitrate reduction were assayed via the method in [92]. The production of siderophores was determined as described in [94]. The formation of polysaccharides was recorded visually via the viscous consistency of the colonies. Phytohormones production was assayed after the growth of PGPB on tryptic soy broth on the 14th day of cultivation; 0.1% tryptophan was added to the growth medium for the detection of IAA.

4.3. Bacterial Phytohormones Assay

The concentrations of IAA, ABA, and GA3 in the extract were determined using the high-performance liquid chromatograph VARIAN 212 LC with a mass-selective detector (Varian 500 MS system). Detection was carried out using ES+ (electrospray) for the relevant characteristic ions. To determine phytohormones, 50 mL of liquid culture (and 50 mL sterile liquid medium, used as a control) was taken and centrifuged at a speed of 3000–5000 rpm for 5 min. The supernatant was drained into a dividing funnel. The precipitate was shaken twice with 30 mL of distilled water and centrifuged after combining the supernatant in a dividing funnel. The combined supernatant in the dividing funnel was acidified with a 10% solution of acetic acid to a pH of 2, after which phytohormones were extracted three times with 10 mL of ethyl acetate. The upper ethyl acetate layer was drained through anhydrous sodium sulfate and evaporated until dry on a rotary evaporator at a temperature of no more than 40 °C. The residue in the distillation flask was washed off with 2 mL of deionized water. The extraction was performed three times. Chromatography was carried out in the gradient mode (phase A, methanol + 0.1% formic acid; phase B, deionized water +0.1% formic acid). The chromatographic system used a Cosmosil C18 4.6 ID × 150 mm column.
The chromatograph was calibrated using the SIGMA-ALDRICH internal standards for pure hormone substances. The identification of hormones was carried out in the mass–mass mode.

4.4. 16 S rRNA Sequencing of PGPB

The genomic DNA of strains was isolated using the DNA isolation kit (AmpliPrime Ribo-Prep, Moscow, Russia). We performed 16S rRNA sequencing for AFI1 and AFI2 bacteria. The 1.5-kilobase partial sequence of the 16S rRNA gene was amplified using a polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and universal Eubacteria-specific primers: 8F (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and 1541R (5′-AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCCGCA-3′). PCR experiments were conducted according to the protocol described in [95]. The PCR product was sequenced using the two primers given above and the following set of two forward and two reverse primers: 805R (5′-GGACTACCAGGGTATCTAATCCC-3′), 515R (5′-GWATTACCGCGGCKGCTG-3′), 508F (5′-AACTACGTGCCAGCAGC-3′), 908F (5′-AAACTCAAAGGAATTGACGG-3′). The numbers given in parentheses refer to the nucleotide positions of the primers and correspond to those in the 16S rDNA of Escherichia coli. Applied Biosystems’ 3500 Genetic Analyzer (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA) was used for the sequence analysis. Electropherograms were analyzed using the sequencing analysis software SeqScape (Applied Biosystems, Foster City, CA, USA), and compared with the reference sequences in GenBank using BLASTN (NCBI).

4.5. Experimental Design

Seeds of soft spring wheat Triticum aestivum L. cv. Chinese spring S (sensitive to high concentrations of Ni) were obtained from N.I. Vavilov All-Russian Institute of Plant Genetic Resources (St. Petersburg, Russia), while seeds of soft spring wheat Triticum aestivum L. cv. Leningradskaya 6 T (tolerant to high concentrations of Ni) were obtained from Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Agricultural Science “Belogorka” (St. Petersburg, Leningrad Region, Russia).
Wheat plants were grown on Knop solution containing CaNO3 (1 g), KH2PO4 (0.25 g), MgSO4·7H2O (0.25 g), KCl (0.125 g) and FeCl3 (0.0125 g per 1 L). The minimal inhibiting concentration of 100 µM/L of Ni cations was used for Ni-stressed variants. The seeds were sterilized in 70% ethyl alcohol for 60 s, washed with tap water, and then placed into 2% sodium hypochlorite solution for 15 min and rinsed in sterile water 7 times. The wheat seeds were germinated for 3 days, after which the seedlings were placed in vessels with Knop solution. The PGPB were grown at 28 °C for 48 h at 140 rpm in a broth of Luria–Bertani (LB) medium in a rotatory shaker. The bacterial concentration was about 108 cells, according to the 0.5 McFarland Turbidity Standard (monitored at OD 600, using spectrophotometer Model Spekol 1500, Jena, Germany). Next, bacterial cells were centrifuged at 3900× g for 5 min; pelleted bacteria were rinsed in 10 mM MgSO4 and diluted to a concentration of 105 cells per 1 mL of Knop solution. The final PGPB concentrations were monitored by counting the bacterial colonies grown on LB-agar medium. Then, 10 mL of bacterial suspension was added to the vessels with Knop solution. The final concentration of PGPB was 5–8 × 105 cells per 1 mL of Knop solution. The vessels with wheat seedlings were placed on an installation for vegetation experiments. The vegetation was maintained in a 16-h photoperiod (16 h of light and 8 h of darkness) under a constant temperature of 25 °C during the day and 18 °C at night, with a light intensity of 23–25 klx per m2. The vegetation periods lasted for 3, 6, and 10 days with Ni exposure and inoculation with PGPB. After the end of each vegetation period, the plants were taken to assess their morphological and biochemical parameters. The experiments were carried out according to the following scheme: Control—non-inoculated wheat plants grown in Knop medium. AFI1—wheat plants grown in Knop solution and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1, at a concentration of 5–8 × 10−5 cells·mL−1. AFI2—wheat plants grown in Knop solution and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2 at a concentration of 5–8 × 10−5 cells·mL−1. Ni—wheat plants grown in Knop solution with minimal toxic Ni concentration (100 µM·L−1). Ni + AFI1—wheat plants grown in Knop solution with minimal toxic Ni concentration (100 µM·L−1) and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1 at a concentration of 5–8 × 10−5 cells·mL−1. Ni + AFI2—wheat plants grown in Knop solution with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2 at a concentration of 5–8×10−5 cells·mL−1. Each variant was carried out in three biological replicates with 50 seedlings per replicate after 3 days and 30 seedlings per replicate after 6 and 10 days. The morphological parameters were measured after 10 days of Ni exposure. All experiments were repeated triplicate. We performed three biological replicates with 30 seedlings per replicate of Leningrad. 6 T and 22 seedlings per replicate of Ch. spring S.

4.6. Determination of Ni

The content of Ni in shoots and roots of the wheat was determined using atomic absorption spectrometry (SpektrAA 300, Varian, Mulgrave, Australia) after the wet digestion of oven-dried tissue in HNO3:HClO4 (4:1, v/v) solution at 140 °C. The flasks were placed in a boiling water bath for 3 h. The solution was cooled down and filtered, and Ni content was determined in the filtrate. Measurements were made following the instructions for the measuring device.

4.7. Chlorophyll and Carotenoids Analysis

For the determination of photosynthetic pigment concentrations, 0.2 g of fresh leaves were cut and placed in tubes containing 10 mL of 80% acetone for 24 h at 20 °C. The tubes were centrifuged at 20,000× g for 20 min, and the absorbance of the resulting supernatant was measured at 663, 645 and 470 nm using a spectrophotometer (Model Spekol 1500, Germany). The contents of chlorophyll a, chlorophyll b, and total carotenoid were calculated after [96].

4.8. Extraction of Proteins and Enzymes

The plant material (0.5 g of raw leaves) was ground on ice in a mortar with a small amount (1.5–2 mL) of 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.8) and with the addition of glass sand. After that, the homogenate was centrifuged at 15,000× g for 15 min at 4 °C. The protein levels and the enzyme activities were measured in the supernatant (a crude extract of leaves). The total soluble protein was determined as described in [97], while bovine serum albumin (BSA) was used as the standard (Figure S3).

4.9. Lipid Peroxidation (LPO)

The LPO level was measured as malondialdehyde MDA content, which is an LPO product [98]. The plant material (0.3 g of fresh leaves) was homogenized and filtered.
The reaction medium consists of 0.3 mL plants homogenate, 3 mL 1% H3PO4, 1 mL 0.6% TBA aqueous solution. The homogenate was put in a water bath at 95–100 °C for 60 min, after which the samples were cooled down. Then 4 mL of n-butanol were added and centrifuged for 10 min at 10.000× g. The absorbance of butanol extract was measured at 532 nm and 600 nm using the spectrophotometer Model Spekol 1500, Jena, Germany. The concentration of TBA-reactive products was expressed in MDA µM g−1 FW.

4.10. Superoxide Dismutase (SOD)

An assay of SOD activity (EC1.1.5.1.1) was performed as described in [99]. The reaction mixture at a volume of 3 mL contained 50 mM of sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.8), 10 mM of methionine, 1.17 mM of riboflavin, 56 mM of nitro blue tetrazolium (NBT) and 0.1 mL of enzyme extract. One unit of SOD was defined as the amount of enzyme that inhibits NBT photo-reduction by 50% when monitored at 560 nm. The calculation was made according to the formula: SOD = lg(OA control/OA test)/(lg2∙PC). Here, OA control—optical absorbance of control sample, OA test—optical absorbance of test sample, PC—protein content. SOD activity was expressed U mg−1protein per minute.

4.11. Ascorbate Peroxidase (APX)

The APX (EC1.11.1.1) activity was assessed after [100] with the use of a 3 mL reaction solution containing 50 mM sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), 0.5 mM L-ascorbate, 0.1 mM H2O2, 0.1 mM Na-EDTA and 0.4 mL of the enzyme extract. The absorbance was measured at 290 nm. For the calculation of the activity, the extinction coefficient of 2.8 mM−1 cm−1 was employed. APX activity was expressed in nM ascorbate oxidized per minute per mg protein.

4.12. Catalase (CAT)

The CAT (EC1.11.1.6) was measured via the method of Aebi [101]. This method is based on the effect of catalase on hydrogen peroxide and the measurement of the ultraviolet absorption of hydrogen peroxide at 240 nm. The reaction mixture at a volume of 3 mL contained 0.1 M of sodium phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), 2 mM of H2O2 and 0.2 mL of enzyme extract. For the calculation of the activity, the extinction coefficient of 0.036 mM−1 cm−1 was employed. CAT activity was expressed in µM of H2O2 per mg−1 protein min−1.

4.13. Guaiacol Peroxidase (POX)

The activity of guaiacol peroxidase (EC 1.11.1.7) was measured using a modified version of the method in [102]. Fresh leaves (0.5 g) were ground with 50 mL of 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), and the homogenate was centrifuged for 20 min at 15,000× g at 4 °C. The assay mixture contained 0.1 M phosphate buffer (pH 7.0), 0.5 mL of guaiacol, 0.5 mL of H2O2 (0.33%) and 0.5 mL of the enzyme extract. The increase in absorbance, which was due to the oxidation of guaiacol to tetraguaiacol (e = 26.6 mM−1 cm−1), was measured for 3 min at 470 nm. POX activity was expressed in units, each representing the absorbance value per second per g−1 FW.

4.14. Proline

The content of proline was determined following Bates’s method [103]. Fresh leaves (1 g) were homogenized in 8 mL of 3% sulfosalicylic acid and centrifuged for 20 min at 15,000× g. Then 2 mL of supernatant was mixed with 2 mL of acid ningydrin reagent and 2 mL of glacial acetic acid. The mixture was heated in a water bath at 100 °C for 1 h. The reaction was arrested by the immersion of the test tubes in cold water (20 °C). The reaction mixture was extracted with toluene (4 mL). Absorption was measured at 520 nm, with toluene used as a control. The calibration curve was used to determine the concentration of proline in the supernatant (Figure S4).

4.15. Statistical Analysis

To assess the wheat growth parameters, independent experiments were performed three times with 30 seedlings of Leningrad. 6 (n = 90) and 22 seedlings of Ch. spring (n = 66). We also used three biological replicates, with 30 seedlings per replicate, to assess the biochemical parameters of plants (n = 9). The data were statistically evaluated using STATISTICA-11 and subjected to a two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The mean values are shown as error bars representing standard errors of the means in all the figures. The data are presented as average mean ± standard error (SEM). Duncan’s multiple range test was performed to determine significant differences between individual means.

5. Conclusions

These results clearly show that epiphytic PGPB B. megaterium AFI1 and P. nicotianae AFI2 could significantly increase the growth and decrease the Ni content in wheat cultivars Ch. spring S and Leningrad. 6 T exposed to 100 µM L−1 Ni. Both inoculants produced auxins, abscisic acid and gibberellins, and B. megaterium AFI1 produced siderophores. Even though B. megaterium AFI1 decreased the Ni content more significantly (up to 34.5%), compared to P. nicotianae AFI2, the latter had a more visible effect on wheat growth under Ni stress, due to the production of large amounts of phytohormones and the nitrogen-fixing activity. Both inoculants elevated chl a, chl b and car contents, and decreased the MDA and proline contents in the leaves of both cultivars under Ni stress. However, PGPB did not affect chl a, chl b or car contents, and insignificantly reduced the MDA contents in the leaves of Leningrad. 6 T under normal conditions. This contrasts with the results for Chines spr. S. B. megaterium AFI1 decreased the proline contents in both cultivars under normal conditions, and especially under Ni stress conditions. While P. nicotianae AFI2 did not reduce the proline content in Ch. spring under normal conditions, this bacterium significantly reduced the proline content under Ni stress conditions in both cultivars. PGPB decreased the CAT, APX and SOD levels in the roots and shoots of both cultivars, increased the POX in the shoots and did not affect the POX in the roots under Ni stress. Even though the activity of antioxidant enzymes was significantly increased by Ni stress, the inoculated plants showed the best growth performances, and the activities of most antioxidant enzymes were reduced. B. megaterium AFI1 may be used for growing environmentally friendly food products in soils with a low level of Ni and other HM contamination. Even though our results open up new directions for phytostabilization technology, this strain must be tested in greenhouse and field experiments.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants10112334/s1, Figure S1: Effect of Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae on growth of Ni sensitive wheat cv. Chinese Spring S after 10 days of Ni exposure, Figure S2: Effect of Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 on growth of tolerant to Ni wheat cv. Leningradskaya 6 T after 10 days of Ni exposure. Figure S3: Protein calibration curve. Figure S4: Proline calibration curve. Table S1: Morphological, physiological and biochemical characteristics of the studied strains AFI1 and AFI2, Table S2: Effect of PGPB on CAT activity (µM H2O2 mg−1 protein min−1) of wheat plants under Ni stress. Table S3: Effect of PGPB on SOD (U mg−1protein min−1) activity of wheat plants under Ni stress. Table S4: Effect of PGPB on POX (U s−1 g−1 FW) activity of wheat plants under Ni stress. Table S5: Effect of PGPB on APX activity (nM ascorbate mg−1 protein min−1) of wheat plants under Ni stress. Table S6: Effect of PGPB on lipid oxidation status LPO (measured in MDA, µM g−1FW) of wheat plants under Ni stress.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, V.N.P., D.C. and V.K.C.; data curation, V.N.P., G.V.M., A.V.S. and Y.V.O.; formal analysis P.S.F., V.N.P. and G.V.M. funding acquisition, V.K.C.; investigation, Y.V.K., V.E.V., V.I.D. and Y.V.O.; methodology, A.V.S., Y.V.K., G.V.M. and V.N.P.; project administration, D.C. and V.K.C.; resources, E.V.Z.; software, G.V.M.; supervision, D.C., V.N.P. and V.K.C.; writing—original draft, P.S.F. and V.N.P.; writing—review and editing, V.N.P., P.S.F., Y.V.O., V.K.C. and D.C. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation, grant number 075-15-2020-920.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding authors.

Acknowledgments

We thank the Ministry of Science and Higher Education of the Russian Federation in accordance with agreement N075-15-2020-920 date 16 November 2020 on providing a grant in the form of subsidies from the Federal budget of the Russian Federation. The grant was provided for the state support of the creation and development of a world-class Scientific Center, “Agrotechnologies for the Future”. We are thankful to A. I. Osipov (Leningrad Scientific Research Institute of Agricultural Science “Belogorka”) for providing us with the seeds of cv. Leningradskaya 6, and to Moskvin M. (Agrophysical Scientific Research Institute) for his technical assistance when conducting the experiments.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Vodyanitskii, Y.N.; Plekhanova, I.O.; Prokopovich, E.V.; Savichev, A.T. Soil contamination with emissions of non-ferrous metallurgical plants. Eur. Soil Sci. 2011, 44, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Rizvi, A.; Ahmed, B.; Zaidi, A.; Khan, M.S. Heavy metal mediated phytotoxic impact on winter wheat: Oxidative stress and microbial management of toxicity by Bacillus subtilis BM2. RSC Adv. 2019, 9, 6125–6142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Yusuf, M.; Fariduddin, Q.; Hayat, S.; Ahmad, A. Nickel: An overview of uptake, essentiality and toxicity in plants. Bull. Environ. Contam. Toxicol. 2011, 86, 1–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sreekanth, T.; Nagajyothi, P.; Lee, K.; Prasad, T. Occurrence, physiological responses and toxicity of nickel in plants. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2013, 10, 1129–1140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Rizwan, M.; Imtiaz, M.; Dai, Z.; Mehmood, S.; Adeel, M.; Liu, J.; Tu, S. Nickel stressed responses of rice in Ni subcellular distribution, antioxidant production, and osmolyte accumulation. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2017, 24, 20587–20598. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Rajindiran, S.; Dotaniya, M.L.; Coumar, M.V.; Panwar, N.R.; Saha, J.K. Heavy metal polluted soils in India: Status and countermeasures. JNKVV Res. J. 2015, 49, 320–337. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/296514347_Heavy_metal_polluted_Soils_in_India_status_and_countermeasures (accessed on 26 October 2021).
  7. Wang, C.J.; Yang, W.; Wang, C.; Gu, C.; Niu, D.D.; Liu, N.X.; Wang, U.P.; Guo, J.H. Induction of drought tolerance in cucumber plants by a consortium of three plant growth-promoting rhizobacterium strains. PLoS ONE 2012, 7, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Chen, C.; Huang, D.; Liu, J. Functions and toxicity of nickel in plants: Recent advances and future prospects. Clean 2009, 37, 304–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Ivanishchev, V.V.; Abramova, E.A. Accumulation of nickel ions in seedlings of Vicia sativa L. and manifestations of oxidative stress. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 2015, 22, 7897–7905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Demchenko, N.P.; Kalimova, I.B. Dynamics of growth, proliferation and differentiation of wheat root cells exposed to a high nickel concentration. Rus. J. Plant. Physiol. 2008, 55, 787–798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Amari, T.; Ghnaya, T.; Abdelly, C. Nickel, cadmium and lead phytotoxicity and potential of halophytic plants in heavy metal extraction. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 111, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Llamas, A.; Sanz, A. Organ-distinctive changes in respiration rates of rice plants under nickel stress. Plant. Growth Regul. 2008, 54, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Seregin, I.V.; Kozhevnikova, A.D. Physiological role of nickel and its toxic effects on higher plants. Rus J. Plant. Physiol. 2006, 53, 257–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Prasad, S.M.; Dwivedi, R.; Zeeshan, M. Growth, photosynthetic electron transport, and antioxidant responses of young soybean seedlings to simultaneous exposure of nickel and UV-B stress. Photosynthetica 2005, 43, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Khoshgoftarmanesh, A.H.; Bahmanziari, H. Stimulating and toxicity effects of nickel on growth, yield, and fruit quality of cucumber supplied with different nitrogen sources. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 2012, 175, 474–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Amari, T.; Ghnaya, T.; Debez, A.; Taamalli, M.; Ben Youssef, N.; Lucchini, G.; Sacchi, G.; Abdelly, C. Comparative Ni tolerance and accumulation potentials between Mesembryanthemum crystallinum (halophyte) and Brassica juncea: Metal accumulation, nutrient status and photosynthetic activity. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 1634–1644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Aziz, H.; Sabir, M.; Ahmad, H.R.; Aziz, T.; Zia-ur-Rehman, M.; Hakeem, K.R.; Ozturk, M. Alleviating effect of calcium on nickel toxicity in Rice. Clean Soil Air Water. 2015, 43, 901–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gill, S.S.; Tuteja, N. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2010, 48, 909–930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Caverzan, A.; Casassola, A.; Brammer, S.P. Antioxidant responses of wheat plants under stress. Genet. Mol. Biol. 2016, 39, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Alscher, R.G.; Erturk, N.; Heatrh, L.S. Role of superoxide dismutases (SODs) in controlling oxidative stress in plants. J. Exp. Bot. 2002, 53, 1331–1341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Sharma, S.S.; Dietz, K.-J. The relationship between metal toxicity and cellular redox imbalance. Trends Plant Sci. 2009, 14, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Baccouch, S.; Chaoui, A.; El Ferjani, E. Nickel toxicity induces oxidative damage in Zea mays roots. J. Plant. Nutr. 2001, 24, 1085–1097. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Pietrini, F.; Iori, V.; Ivanova, A.; Shevyakova, N.; Radyukina, N.; Kuznetsov, V.; Zacchini, M. Evaluation of nickel tolerance in Amaranthus paniculatus L. plants by measuring photosynthesis, oxidative status, antioxidative response and metal-binding molecule content. Environ. Sci. Pollut Res. 2015, 22, 482–494. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Zhao, J.; Lu, C.; Tariq, M.; Xiao, Q.; Zhang, W.; Huang, K.; Lu, Q.; Lin, K.; Liu, Z. The response and tolerance mechanisms of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) exposed to nickel in a spiked soil system. Chemosphere 2019, 222, 399–406. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Najafi Kakavand, S.; Karimi, N.; Ghasempour, H.-R. Salicylic acid and jasmonic acid restrains nickel toxicity by ameliorating antioxidant defense system in shoots of metallicolous and non-metallicolous Alyssum inflatum Náyr. Populations. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2019, 135, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Gajewska, E.; Skłodowska, M. Antioxidative responses and proline level in leaves and roots of pea plants subjected to nickel stress. Acta Physiol. Plant. 2005, 27, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Boominathan, R.; Doran, P.M. Ni-induced oxidative stress in roots of the Ni hyperaccumulator, Alyssum bertolonii. New Phytol. 2002, 156, 205–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Parlak, K.U. Effect of nickel on growth and biochemical characteristics of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) seedlings. NJAS Wageningen J. Life Sci. 2016, 76, 1–5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zahra, S.; Mahmood, S.; Noreen, S.; Akrem, A. Independent and combined nickel and cadmium induced lipid peroxidation of biological membranes and its mitigation through antioxidant enzymes in Grewia asiatica L. Pakistan J. Life Soc. Sci. 2018, 16, 48–54. [Google Scholar]
  30. Spence, C.; Bais, H. The role of plant growth regulators as chemical signals in plant–microbe interactions: A double edged sword. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2015, 27, 52–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Khan, W.U.; Ahmad, S.R.; Yasin, N.A.; Ali, A.; Ahmad, A.; Akram, W. Application of Bacillus megaterium MCR-8 improved phytoextraction and stress alleviation of nickel in Vinca rosea. Int J. Phytoremediat. 2017, 19, 813–824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. Dimkpa, C.; Svatoš, A.; Merten, D.; Büchel, G.; Kothe, E. Hydroxamate siderophores produced by Streptomyces acidiscabies E13 bind nickel and promote growth in cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.) under nickel stress. Can. J. Microbiol. 2008, 54, 163–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Tiwari, S.; Lata, C. Heavy metal stress, signaling, and tolerance due to plant-associated microbes: An overview. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Aktan, Y.; Tan, S.; Icgen, B. Characterization of lead-resistant river isolate Enterococcus faecalis and assessment of its multiple metal and antibiotic resistance. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 5285–5293. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Choudhury, R.; Srivastava, S. Zinc resistance mechanisms in bacteria. Curr. Sci. 2001, 81, 768–775. Available online: https://www.jstor.org/stable/24106396 (accessed on 26 October 2021).
  36. Pishchik, V.N.; Vorob’ev, N.I.; Provorov, N.A.; Khomyakov, Y.V. Mechanisms of plant and microbial adaptation to heavy metals in plant–microbial systems. Microbiology 2016, 85, 257–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kumar, A.; Maurya, B.R.; Raghuwanshi, R. Isolation and characterization of PGPR and their effect on growth, yield and nutrient content in wheat (Triticum aestivum L.). Biocatal. Agric. Biotech. 2014, 3, 121–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Grady, E.N.; MacDonald, J.; Liu, L.; Richman, A.; Yuan, Z.-C. Current knowledge and perspectives of Paenibacillus: A review. Microb. Cell Fact. 2016, 15, 203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Chen, W.-M.; Tang, Y.-Q.; Mori, K.; Wu, X.-L. Distribution of culturable endophytic bacteria in aquatic plants and their potential for bioremediation in polluted waters. Aquat. Biol. 2012, 15, 99–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  40. Perez, M.H.A.; Garcıa-Ribera, R.; Quesada, T.; Aguilera, M.; Ramos-Cormenzana, A.; Monteoliva-Sanchez, M. Biosorption of heavy metals by the exopolysaccharide produced by Paenibacillus Jamilae. World J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2008, 24, 2699–2704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Awan, S.A.; Ilyas, N.; Khan, I.; Ali Raza, M.A.; Rehman, A.U.; Rizwan, M.; Rastogi, A.; Tariq, R.; Brestic, M. Bacillus siamensis reduces cadmium accumulation and improves growth and antioxidant defense system in two wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) varieties. Plants 2020, 9, 878. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Saif, S.; Khan, M.S. Assessment of toxic impact of metals on proline, antioxidant enzymes, and biological characteristics of Pseudomonas aeruginosa inoculated Cicer arietinum grown in chromium and nickel-stressed sandy clay loam soils. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Pandey, S.; Ghosh, P.K.; Ghosh, S.; De, T.K.; Maiti, T.K. Role of Heavy Metal Resistant Ochrobactrum sp. and Bacillus spp. strains in Bioremediation of a Rice Cultivar and Their PGPR Like Activities. J. Microbiol. 2013, 51, 11–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Amjad, M.; Ameen, N.; Murtaza, B.; Imran, M.; Shahid, M.; Abbas, G.; Naeem, M.A.; Jacobsen, S.-E. Comparative Physiological and Biochemical Evaluation of Salt and Nickel Tolerance Mechanisms in Two Contrasting Tomato Genotypes. Physiol. Plantarum. 2020, 168, 27–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Jan, R.; Khan, M.A.; Asaf, S.; Lee, I.J.; Kim, K.M. Metal resistant endophytic bacteria reduces cadmium, nickel toxicity, and enhances expression of metal stress relatd genes with improved growth of Oryza sativa, via regulating its antioxidant machinery and endogenous hormones. Plants 2019, 8, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Manoj, S.R.; Karthik, C.; Kadirvelu, K.; Arulselvi, P.I.; Shanmugasundaram, T.; Bruno, B.; Rajkumar, M. Understanding the molecular mechanisms for the enhanced phytoremediation of heavy metals through plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A review. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 254, 109779. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Pishchik, V.; Mirskaya, G.; Chizhevskaya, E.; Chebotar, V.; Chakrabarty, D. Nickel-tolerance in plant-bacterial associations. PeerJ 2021, 9, e12230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Taubel, M.; Kampfer, P.; Sandra Buczolits, S.; Lubitz, W.; Busse, H.-J. Bacillus barbaricus sp. nov., isolated from an experimental wall painting. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2003, 53, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Siddiqi, M.Z.; Siddiqi, M.H.; Im, W.T.; Kim, Y.-J.; Yang, D.-C. Paenibacillus kyungheensis sp. nov., isolated from flowers of magnolia. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2015, 65, 3959–3964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Li, Q.-Q.; Zhou, X.-K.; Dang, L.-Z.; Cheng, J.; Hozzein, W.N.; Liu, M.-J.; Hu, Q.; Li, W.-J.; Duan, Y.-Q. Paenibacillus nicotianae sp. nov., isolated from a tobacco sample. Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek 2014, 106, 1199–1205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Gupta, R.S.; Patel, S.; Saini, N.; Chen, S. Robust demarcation of 17 distinct Bacillus species clades, proposed as novel Bacillaceae genera, by phylogenomics and comparative genomic analyses: Description of Robertmurraya kyonggiensis sp. nov. and proposal for an emended genus Bacillus limiting it only to the members of the Subtilis and Cereus clades of species. Int. J. Syst. Evol. Microbiol. 2020, 11, 5753–5798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Fierros-Romero, G.; Gómez-Ramírez, M.; Sharma, A.; Pless, R.C.; Rojas-Avelizapa, N.G. czcD gene from Bacillus megaterium and Microbacterium liquefaciens as a potential nickel–vanadium soil pollution biomarker. J. Basic Microbiol. 2020, 60, 22–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Pandey, N.; Pathak, G.C. Nickel alters antioxidative defense and water status in green gram. Indian J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 11, 113–118. [Google Scholar]
  54. Gajewska, E.; Skłodowska, M. Differential biochemical responses of wheat shoots and roots to nickel stress: Antioxidative reactions and proline accumulation. Plant Growth Regul. 2007, 54, 179–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Bhalerao, S.A.; Amit, S.S.; Anukthi, C.P. Toxicity of nickel in plants. Int. J. Pure App. Biosci. 2015, 32, 345–355. [Google Scholar]
  56. Ahmad, M.S.; Ashraf, M.; Hussain, M. Phytotoxic effects of nickel on yield and concentration of macro- and micro-nutrients in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) achenes. J. Hazard. Mater. 2011, 185, 1295–1303. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Hasheminasab, H.; Taghi Assad, M.; Aliakbari, A.; Rasoul Sahhafi, S. Influence of Drought Stress on Oxidative damage and antioxidant defense systems in tolerant and susceptible wheat genotypes. J. Agric. Sci. 2012, 4, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Jamali, S.S.; Borzouei, A.; Aghamirzaei, M.; Khosronejad, H.R.; Fathi, M. Cell membrane stability and biochemical response of seven wheat cultivars under salinity stress. Braz. J. Bot. 2015, 38, 63–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Sairam, R.K.; Saxena, D.C. Oxidative Stress and Antioxidants in Wheat Genotypes: Possible Mechanism of Water Stress Tolerance. J. Agron. Crop. Sci. 2000, 184, 55–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Amjad, M. Nickel toxicity induced changes in nutrient dynamics and antioxidant profiling in two maize (Zea mays L.) hybrids. Plants 2020, 9, 5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  61. Lastochkina, O.; Pusenkova, L.; Yuldashev, R.; Babaev, M.; Garipova, S.; Blagova, D.; Khairullin, R.; Aliniaeifard, S. Effects of Bacillus subtilis on some physiological and biochemical parameters of Triticum aestivum L. (wheat) under salinity. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2017, 121, 80–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kuramshina, Z.M.; Smirnova, Y.V.; Khairullin, R.M. Increasing Triticum aestivum tolerance to cadmium stress through endophytic strains of Bacillus subtilis. Rus. J. Plant Physiol. 2016, 63, 636–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jiang, W.; Yang, L.; He, Y.; Zhang, H.; Li, W.; Chen, H.; Ma, D.; Yin, J. Genome-wide identification and transcriptional expression analysis of superoxide dismutase (SOD) family in wheat (Triticum aestivum). PeerJ 2019, 7, e8062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Lakhdar, A.; Iannelli, M.A.; Debez, A.; Massacci, A.; Jedidi, N.; Abdelly, C. Effect of municipal solid waste compost and sewage sludge use on wheat (Triticum durum): Growth, heavy metal accumulation, and antioxidant activity. J. Sci. Food Agric. 2010, 90, 965–971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Hussain, M.B.; Ali, S.; Azam, A.; Hina, S.; Ahsan, M.; Farooq, B.A.; Bharwana, S.A.; Gill, M.B. Morphological, physiological and biochemical responses of plants to nickel stress: A review. Afr. J. Agric. Res. 2013, 8, 1596–1602. [Google Scholar]
  66. Singh, K.; Pandey, S.N. Effect of nickel-stresses on uptake, pigments and antioxidative responses of water lettuce, Pistia stratiotes L. J. Environ. Biol. 2011, 32, 391–394. [Google Scholar]
  67. Gajewska, E.; Skłodowska, M. Effect of nickel on ROS content and antioxidative enzyme activities in wheat leaves. BioMetals 2006, 20, 27–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Danna, C.H.; Bartoli, C.G.; Sacco, F.; Ingala, L.R.; Santa-Maria, G.E.; Guiamet, J.J.; Ugalde, R.A. Thylakoid-bound ascorbateperoxidase mutant exhibits impaired electron transport and photosynthetic activity. Plant Physiol. 2003, 132, 2116–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Li, X.; Ma, H.; Jia, P.; Wang, J.; Jia, L.; Zhang, T.; Yang, Y.; Chen, H.; Wei, X. Responses of seedling growth and antioxidant activity to excess iron and copper in Triticum aestivum L. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2012, 86, 47–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Scandalios, J.G. Oxidative stress: Molecular perception and transduction of signals triggering antioxidant gene defenses. Braz. J. Med. Biol. Res. 2005, 38, 995–1014. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  71. Apel, K.; Hirt, H. Reactive oxygen species: Metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2004, 55, 373–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Gajewska, E.; Wielanek, M.; Bergier, K.; Skłodowska, M. Nickel-induced depression of nitrogen assimilation in wheat roots. Acta Physiol. Plant 2015, 31, 1291–1300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Gajewska, E.; Głowacki, R.; Mazur, J.; Skłodowska, M. Differential response of wheat roots to Cu, Ni and Cd treatment: Oxidative stress and defense reactions. Plant Growth Regul. 2013, 71, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Santos, S.; Neto, I.F.F.; Machado, M.D.; Soares, H.M. Siderophore Production by Bacillus megaterium: Effect of Growth Phase and Cultural Conditions. Appl. Biochem. Biotechnol. 2014, 172, 549–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Ferreira, C.M.H.; Vilas-Boas, Â.; Sousa, C.A.; Soares, H.M.V.M.; Soares, E.V. Comparison of five bacterial strains producing siderophores with ability to chelate iron under alkaline conditions. AMB Expr. 2019, 9, 78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Bhatt, K.; Maheshwari, D.K. Zinc solubilizing bacteria (Bacillus megaterium) with multifarious plant growth promoting activities alleviates growth in Capsicum annuum L. 3Biotech 2020, 10, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Ma, Y.; Prasad, M.N.V.; Rajkumar, M.; Freitas, H. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria and endophytes accelerate phytoremediation of metalliferous soils. Biotechnol. Adv. 2011, 29, 248–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Cabello-Conejo, M.I.; Prieto-Fernández, Á.; Kidd, P.S. Exogenous treatments with phytohormones can improve growth and nickel yield of hyperaccumulating plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2014, 494–495, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Zhao, Y.; Xing, L.; Wang, X.; Hou, Y.-J.; Gao, J.; Wang, P.; Duan, C.G.; Zhu, X.; Zhu, J.K. The ABA receptor PYL8 promotes lateral root growth by enhancing MYB77-dependent transcription of auxin-responsive genes. Sci. Signal. 2014, 7, 53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  80. Kudoyarova, G.R.; Kholodova, V.P.; Veselov, D.S. Current state of the problem of water relations in plants under water deficit. Russ. J. Plant Physiol. 2013, 60, 165–175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Wang, H.; Feng, T.; Peng, X.; Yan, M.; Tang, X. Up-regulation of chloroplasticantioxidant capacity is involved in alleviation of nickel toxicity of Zea mays L. by exogenous salicylic acid. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2009, 72, 1354–1362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Ghasemi, R.; Ghaderian, S.M.; Krämer, U. Interference of nickel with copper and iron homeostasis contributes to metal toxicity symptoms in the nickel hyperaccumulator plant Alyssum inflatum. New Phytol. 2009, 184, 566–580. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. El-Meihy, R.M.; Abou-Aly, H.E.; Youssef, A.M.; Tewfike, T.A.; El-Alkshar, E.A. Efficiency of heavy metals-tolerant plant growth promoting bacteria for alleviating heavy metals toxicity on sorghum. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2019, 162, 295–301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Küpper, H.; Andresen, E. Mechanisms of metal toxicity in plants. Metallomics 2016, 8, 269–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  85. Lastochkina, O.; Garshina, D.; Ivanov, S.; Yuldashev, R.; Khafizova, R.; Allagulova, C.; Fedorova, K.; Avalbaev, A.; Maslennikova, D.; Bosacchi, M. Seed Priming with Endophytic Bacillus subtilis Modulates Physiological Responses of Two Different Triticum aestivum L. Cultivars under Drought Stress. Plants 2020, 9, 1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Kitajima, K.; Hogan, K.P. Increases of chlorophyll a/b ratios during acclimation of tropical woody seedlings to nitrogen limitation and high light. Plant Cell Environ. 2003, 26, 857–865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  87. Zhang, Y.; He, N.; Yu, G. Opposing shifts in distributions of chlorophyll concentration and composition in grassland under warming. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 15736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Smith, D.L.; Gravel, V.; Yergeau, E. Editorial: Signaling in the phytomicrobiome. Front. Plant Sci. 2017, 8, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  89. Akhtar, M.J.; Ullah, S.; Ahmad, I.; Rauf, A.; Nadeem, S.M.; Khan, M.Y.; Hussain, S.; Bulgariue, L. Nickel phytoextraction through bacterial inoculation in Raphanus sativus. Chemosphere 2018, 190, 234–242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Sharma, P.; Jha, A.B.; Dubey, R.S.; Pessarakli, M. Reactive oxygen species, oxidative damage, and antioxidative defense mechanism in plants under stressful conditions. J. Bot. 2012, 2012, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  91. Rana, A.; Saharan, B.; Joshi, M.; Prasanna, R.; Kumar, K.; Nain, L. Identification of multi-trait PGPR isolates and evaluating their potential as inoculants for wheat. Ann. Microbiol. 2011, 61, 893–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Hugh, R.; Leifson, F. The taxonomic significance of fermentative oxydation metabolism of carbohydrates by various Gram-negative bacteria. J. Bacteriol. 1953, 66, 24–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  93. Collins, C.H.; Lyne, P.M. (Eds.) Microbiological Methods, 5th ed.; Butterworth & Co, Ltd.: London, UK, 1985; p. 450. [Google Scholar]
  94. Pérez-Miranda, S.; Cabirol, N.; George-Téllez, R.; Zamudio-Rivera, L.S.; Fernández, F.J. O-CAS, a fast and universal method for siderophore detection. J. Microbiol. Methods 2007, 70, 127–131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  95. Pishchik, V.N.; Vorobyev, N.I.; Ostankova, Y.V.; Semenov, A.V.; Totolian, A.A.; Popov, A.A.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Udalova, O.R.; Shibanov, D.V.; Vertebny, V.E.; et al. Impact of Bacillus subtilis on Tomato Plants Growth and Some Biochemical Characteristics under Combined Application with Humic Fertilizer. Int. J. Plant Soil Sci. 2018, 22, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Wellburn, A.R. The spectral determination of chlorophylls a and b, as well as total carotenoids, using various solvents with spectrophotometers of different resolution. J. Plant Physiol. 1994, 144, 307–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Bradford, M.M. A Rapid and Sensitive Method for the Quantitation of Microgram Quantities of Protein Utilizing the Principle of Protein-Dye Binding. Anal. Biochem. 1976, 72, 248–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Uchiyama, M.; Mihara, M. Determination of malonaldehyde precursor in tissues by thiobarbituric acid test. Anal. Biochem. 1978, 86, 287–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Beauchamp, C.; Fridovich, L. Superoxide dismutase: Improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Anal. Biochem. 1971, 44, 276–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Nakano, Y.; Asada, K. Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiol. 1981, 22, 867–880. [Google Scholar]
  101. Aebi, H. Catalases. Methods Enzym. Anal. 1971, 3, 273–286. [Google Scholar]
  102. Chance, B.; Maehly, A.C. Assay catalase and peroxidase. In Methods in Enzymology; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1955; pp. 764–775. [Google Scholar]
  103. Bates, L.S. Rapid determination of free proline for water stress studies. Plant. Soil. 1973, 39, 205–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 10 02334 g001 550
Figure 1. Neighbor-joining tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis showing the phylogenetic relationships of strain AFI1 and members of the genus Bacillus. Bootstrap values higher than 60% based on 1000 replications are shown at branching points. Thermobacillus xylanilyticus was used as an outgroup. Scale bar, 0.02 substitutions per nucleotide position.
Figure 1. Neighbor-joining tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis showing the phylogenetic relationships of strain AFI1 and members of the genus Bacillus. Bootstrap values higher than 60% based on 1000 replications are shown at branching points. Thermobacillus xylanilyticus was used as an outgroup. Scale bar, 0.02 substitutions per nucleotide position.
Plants 10 02334 g001
Plants 10 02334 g002 550
Figure 2. Neighbor-joining tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis showing the phylogenetic relationships of strain AFl2 and members of the genus Paenibacillus. Bootstrap values higher than 60% based on 1000 replications are shown at branching points. Thermobacillus xylanilyticus and Cohnella hongkongensis were used as an outgroup. Scale bar, 0.01 substitutions per nucleotide position.
Figure 2. Neighbor-joining tree based on 16S rRNA gene sequence analysis showing the phylogenetic relationships of strain AFl2 and members of the genus Paenibacillus. Bootstrap values higher than 60% based on 1000 replications are shown at branching points. Thermobacillus xylanilyticus and Cohnella hongkongensis were used as an outgroup. Scale bar, 0.01 substitutions per nucleotide position.
Plants 10 02334 g002
Plants 10 02334 g003 550
Figure 3. Ni content in shoots and roots of wheats: (A,C) Chinese spring S; (B,D) Leningradskaya 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 3. Ni content in shoots and roots of wheats: (A,C) Chinese spring S; (B,D) Leningradskaya 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Plants 10 02334 g003
Plants 10 02334 g004 550
Figure 4. Chlorophylls and carotenoids contents in shoots of wheats: (A) Ch. spring S, (B) Leningrad. 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 4. Chlorophylls and carotenoids contents in shoots of wheats: (A) Ch. spring S, (B) Leningrad. 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Plants 10 02334 g004
Plants 10 02334 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of PGPB on LPO activity in wheats: (A) Chinese spring S, (B) Leningradskaya 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 5. Effect of PGPB on LPO activity in wheats: (A) Chinese spring S, (B) Leningradskaya 6 T. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Plants 10 02334 g005
Plants 10 02334 g006 550
Figure 6. Proline content in wheat shoots of Ch. spring S and Leningrad.6 T under Ni exposure and after bacterial inoculation. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Figure 6. Proline content in wheat shoots of Ch. spring S and Leningrad.6 T under Ni exposure and after bacterial inoculation. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Plants 10 02334 g006
Table
Table 1. Phytohormones and siderophores productions by PGPB studied.
Table 1. Phytohormones and siderophores productions by PGPB studied.
IAA, µg/LABA, µg/LGAS3 µg/LSiderophores
AFI133.6 ± 0.3614.4 ± 0.412.90 ± 0.28+
AFI261.7 ± 0.3540.4 ± 0.2840.0 ± 0.82−
Table
Table 2. Effect of toxic Ni concentration and inoculation with PGPB on wheat length and fresh weight (FW).
Table 2. Effect of toxic Ni concentration and inoculation with PGPB on wheat length and fresh weight (FW).
ShootsRootsSeedlings
Length, mmFW, mgLength, mmFW, mgFW, mg
Chinese spring S
Control282.9 ± 29.50 b26.9 ± 4.18 c90.7 ± 5.61 ab12.6 ± 1.97 c39.5 ± 5.74 c
AFI1347.3 ± 15.20 a38.5 ± 2.02 a99.1 ± 5.88 a21.5 ± 2.41 a59.9 ± 4.00 a
AFI2342.7 ± 13.43 b35.0 ± 2.58 b83.2 ± 3.56 b18.7 ± 2.13 b53.7 ± 3.84 b
Ni157.9 ± 8.20 d12.3 ± 0.99 e56.4 ± 6.20 c6.3 ± 1.08 d18.6 ± 1.90 e
Ni + AFI1168.9 ± 11.45 cd12.8 ± 0.88 e62.1 ± 4.07 c7.0 ± 0.74 d19.8 ± 1.37 de
Ni + AFI2179.6 ± 8.18 c15.1 ± 1.41 d59.3 ± 5.52 c7.6 ± 0.79 d22.8 ± 2.01 d
Leningradskaya 6 T
Control268.8 ± 4.66 b23.6 ± 1.50 b99.5 ± 4.09 c8.4 ± 0.62 b32.0 ± 1.72 b
AFI1295.8 ± 4.96 a30.0 ± 1.16 a154.7 ± 11.70 a11.4 ± 1.61 a41.3 ± 2.39 a
AFI2285.3 ± 4.64 a31.8 ± 0.81 a133.2 ± 6.05 b11.1 ± 1.05 a43.0 ± 1.46 a
Ni223.1 ± 7.03 d12.0 ± 0.83 d49.8 ± 2.55 d4.7 ± 0.29 c16.6 ± 0.92 d
Ni + AFI1242.3 ± 6.14 c15.2 ± 0.58 c56.7 ± 3.59 d5.0 ± 0.30 c20.3 ± 0.66 e
Ni + AFI2255.9 ± 6.99 bc15.2 ± 0.64 c60.9 ± 3.09 d4.9 ± 0.42 c20.1 ± 0.76 c
Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with Bacillus megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants grown with Ni and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. The bars are the means of three biological replicates with 30 seedlings of Leningrad. 6 T and 22 seedlings of Ch. spring per replicate. FW—fresh weight of shoots and roots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments (for shoot and roots, respectively) at the p < 0.05 level, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test. Different letters indicate a significant difference between the means at the probability level of p < 0.05, as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Table
Table 3. Effects of PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 on total chlorophyll content and chlorophyll ratio in wheat plants under Ni stress.
Table 3. Effects of PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 on total chlorophyll content and chlorophyll ratio in wheat plants under Ni stress.
TreatmentChlorophyll a/b RatioTotal Chlorophyll, µg g−1 FW
Chinese spring S
Control2.4101.31 ± 1.94 c
AFI12.4110.16 ± 3.23 b
AFI22.5121.35 ± 2.66 a
Ni2.974.07 ± 2.88 e
Ni + AFI12.688.78 ± 2.00 d
Ni + AFI22.686.53 ± 3.15 d
Leningradskaya 6 T
Control2.5110.79 ± 3.01 a
AFI12.5109.81 ± 3.19 a
AFI22.5110.90 ± 2.89 a
Ni2.871.05 ± 2.65 c
Ni + AFI12.5101.37 ± 2.79 b
Ni + AFI22.698.61 ± 2.00 b
Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants grown with Ni and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. FW—fresh weight of shoots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Table
Table 4. Effects of PGPB on CAT (µM H2O2 mg−1 protein min−1) and SOD (U mg−1 protein min−1) activities under Ni stress.
Table 4. Effects of PGPB on CAT (µM H2O2 mg−1 protein min−1) and SOD (U mg−1 protein min−1) activities under Ni stress.
TreatmentCAT in Roots
µM H2O2 mg−1 Protein min−1		CAT in Shoots
µM H2O2 mg−1 Protein min−1		SOD in Roots
U mg−1 Protein min−1		SOD in Shoots
U mg−1 Protein min−1
Chinese spring S
Control299.9 ± 16.9 a566.2 ± 25.6 a0.285 ± 0.013 d0.353 ± 0.018 a
AFI1255.1 ± 15.4 b572.7 ± 29.4 a0.298 ± 0.014 cd0.256 ± 0.013 d
AFI2223.3 ± 9.4 c570.2 ± 24.2 a0.313 ± 0.013 bc0.313 ± 0.014 b
Ni307.7 ± 14.9 a540.5 ± 26.0 a0.339 ± 0.014 a0.295 ± 0.014 c
Ni + AFI1250.4 ± 12.7 b570.8 ± 34.1 a0.331 ± 0.016 a0.238 ± 0.014 e
Ni + AFI2222.8 ± 8.9 c563.4 ± 20.0 a0.324 ± 0.016 ab0.244 ± 0.015 de
Leningradskaya6 T
Control550.5 ± 18.7 a501.1 ± 18.6 a0.137 ± 0.005 c0.140 ± 0.005 a
AFI1490.7 ± 14.7 b499.6 ± 13.1 a0.157 ± 0.007 ab0.135 ± 0.005 a
AFI2432.0 ± 13.4 c509.2 ± 18.2 a0.164 ± 0.007 ab0.146 ± 0.006 a
Ni285.9 ± 15.3 d491.5 ± 15.5 a0.173 ± 0.006 a0.115 ± 0.004 b
Ni + AFI1257.6 ± 16.9 e490.0 ± 19.9 a0.149 ± 0.005 bc0.097 ± 0.006 c
Ni + AFI2220.8 ± 15.7 f501.0 ± 25.9 a0.159 ± 0.011 ab0.102 ± 0.005 b
Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Table
Table 5. Effects of PGPB on POX (U s−1 g−1 FW) and APX (nM ascorbate mg−1 protein min−1) activities under Ni stress.
Table 5. Effects of PGPB on POX (U s−1 g−1 FW) and APX (nM ascorbate mg−1 protein min−1) activities under Ni stress.
TreatmentPOX in Roots
(U s−1 g−1 FW)		POX in Shoots
(U s−1 g−1 FW)		APX in Roots
(nM Ascorbate mg−1 Protein min−1)		APX in Shoots
(nM Ascorbate mg−1 Protein min−1)
Chinese spring S
Control61.9 ± 2.8 c32.5 ± 1.3 d5.60 ± 0.37 d2.09 ± 0.07 d
AFI170.6 ± 2.1 b42.1 ± 1.8 c6.51 ± 0.23 c2.41 ± 0.13 bc
AFI275.0 ± 3.4 b42.3 ± 1.6 c6.79 ± 0.44 c2.30 ± 0.15 bc
Ni116.8 ± 4.9 a74.0 ± 3.2 b9.05 ± 0.32 a5.24 ± 0.17 a
Ni + AFI1118.8 ± 8.2 a82.3 ± 4.3 a7.75 ± 0.37 b2.48 ± 0.09 b
Ni + AFI2119.2 ± 3.7 a83.3 ± 4.3 a6.58 ± 0.28 c2.27 ± 0.07 c
Leningradskaya 6 T
Control65.9 ± 3.7 c36.1 ± 2.3 d4.30 ± 0.24 d1.34 ± 0.06 e
AFI172.2 ± 4.8 c38.4 ± 2.1 d4.95 ± 0.19 c1.54 ± 0.09 d
AFI272.4 ± 3.4 c37.6 ± 2.1 d4.76 ± 0.25 c1.86 ± 0.09 c
Ni101.7 ± 5.5 b55.3 ± 2.4 c7.16 ± 0.40 a3.75 ± 0.18 a
Ni + AFI1109.3 ± 5.5 a64.3 ± 2.2 b6.50 ± 0.30 b2.39 ± 0.13 b
Ni + AFI2105.7 ± 4.1 ab68.9 ± 3.2 a6.18 ± 0.29 b2.33 ± 0.16 b
Control: non—inoculated wheat plants. AFI1: wheat plants inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. AFI2: wheat plants inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Ni: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1. Ni + AFI1: wheat plants with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with B. megaterium AFI1. Ni + AFI2: wheat plants grown with Ni concentration 100 µM·L−1 and inoculated with P. nicotianae AFI2. Data of three independent experiments are expressed as the means of three replicates. In each experiment 30 plants of Leningrad. 6 T and 30 plants of Ch. spring S were used. FW—fresh weight of shoots and roots. Bars show ±SEM and different letters show a significant difference among treatments at the p < 0.05 level as determined by Duncan’s multiple range test.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Pishchik, V.N.; Filippova, P.S.; Mirskaya, G.V.; Khomyakov, Y.V.; Vertebny, V.E.; Dubovitskaya, V.I.; Ostankova, Y.V.; Semenov, A.V.; Chakrabarty, D.; Zuev, E.V.; et al. Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress. Plants 2021, 10, 2334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112334

AMA Style

Pishchik VN, Filippova PS, Mirskaya GV, Khomyakov YV, Vertebny VE, Dubovitskaya VI, Ostankova YV, Semenov AV, Chakrabarty D, Zuev EV, et al. Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress. Plants. 2021; 10(11):2334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112334

Chicago/Turabian Style

Pishchik, Veronika N., Polina S. Filippova, Galina V. Mirskaya, Yuriy V. Khomyakov, Vitaliy E. Vertebny, Viktoriya I. Dubovitskaya, Yuliya V. Ostankova, Aleksandr V. Semenov, Debasis Chakrabarty, Evgeny V. Zuev, and et al. 2021. "Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress" Plants 10, no. 11: 2334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112334

APA Style

Pishchik, V. N., Filippova, P. S., Mirskaya, G. V., Khomyakov, Y. V., Vertebny, V. E., Dubovitskaya, V. I., Ostankova, Y. V., Semenov, A. V., Chakrabarty, D., Zuev, E. V., & Chebotar, V. K. (2021). Epiphytic PGPB Bacillus megaterium AFI1 and Paenibacillus nicotianae AFI2 Improve Wheat Growth and Antioxidant Status under Ni Stress. Plants, 10(11), 2334. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10112334

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop