Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Agrobacterium

Agrobacterium is a genus of Gram-negative, rod-shaped, soil-inhabiting bacteria in the family Rhizobiaceae, notable for its natural capacity to transfer DNA segments into plant cells, thereby inducing tumorous growths known as crown galls or hairy roots depending on the species involved. The primary pathogenic species, A. tumefaciens, causes crown gall disease by exploiting wounds in susceptible dicotyledonous plants to deliver transfer DNA (T-DNA) from its tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid, which integrates into the host genome and expresses genes promoting uncontrolled cell proliferation and opine synthesis for bacterial nutrition. This interkingdom DNA transfer mechanism, unique among prokaryotes, has positioned Agrobacterium as a cornerstone tool in plant molecular biology for engineering transgenic crops, enabling the insertion of foreign genes into a wide array of plant species beyond its natural hosts. While the bacterium's phytopathogenic traits pose agricultural challenges, particularly in orchards and nurseries where galls disrupt vascular tissue and nutrient flow, its engineered derivatives—disarmed of oncogenic T-DNA—facilitate precise genetic modifications without disease induction, revolutionizing crop improvement for traits like herbicide resistance and pest tolerance.

Taxonomy and Classification

Nomenclatural History

The Agrobacterium was proposed by H. J. Conn in 1942 within the Rhizobiaceae, initially comprising soil-inhabiting capable of inciting tumors or hairy roots, including the non-pathogenic Agrobacterium radiobacter (Beijerinck and van Delden 1902) Conn 1942 and the pathogenic species A. tumefaciens (Smith and Townsend 1907) Conn 1942 and A. rhizogenes (Riker and Berge ) Conn 1942. The was designated as A. tumefaciens, reflecting its etiological role in crown gall disease first described in 1907, though A. radiobacter had nomenclatural priority as an earlier name for similar non-tumorigenic strains. The name derives from agros (field) and New Latin bacterium (small rod), emphasizing its terrestrial and rod-shaped . Validation of the genus occurred via the Approved Lists of Bacterial Names in 1980, confirming Conn's original description under the International Code of of Prokaryotes (ICNP). An emendation by Sawada et al. in 1993 refined the circumscription, incorporating phenotypic and genetic data to distinguish Agrobacterium from while retaining biovar classifications: biovar 1 (tumefaciens group), biovar 2 (rhizogenes group), and biovar 3 (rubi group). Additional , such as A. rubi (1957) and A. vitis (1990), were incorporated, expanding the genus to include grapevine crown gall pathogens. Phylogenetic analyses in the late 20th century prompted reclassification proposals, with Young et al. (2001) transferring all Agrobacterium species to Rhizobium—e.g., R. radiobacter for biovar 1 and R. rhizogenes for biovar 2—based on 16S rRNA similarities and shared nodulation traits, rendering Agrobacterium illegitimate. This move faced opposition from plant pathologists and biotechnologists, who argued for conserving Agrobacterium due to its distinct pathogenicity and utility in genetic transformation, leading to Judicial Commission rulings in 2001 (Opinion 85) and 2014 that upheld A. tumefaciens as the conserved type species over A. radiobacter. Subsequent revisions, including Mousavi et al. (2015), restored some species to Agrobacterium while reassigning A. vitis to Allorhizobium, resulting in a current genus of approximately 14 validly named species centered on tumor-inducing traits.

Species Composition

The genus Agrobacterium currently includes 19 validly published , as cataloged by the List of Prokaryotic names with Standing in Nomenclature (LPSN). These belong to the family Rhizobiaceae within and are characterized by their rod-shaped, motile, Gram-negative cells, with many exhibiting phytopathogenic traits via plasmid-mediated DNA transfer. The type , Agrobacterium tumefaciens (Smith and Townsend 1907) Conn 1942 emend. Sawada et al. 1993, induces crown gall tumors on wounded dicotyledonous plants, affecting over 140 across 90 families through virulence genes on its . Key phytopathogenic species encompass A. rhizogenes (Riker et al. 1930) Conn 1942, which provokes hairy root syndrome via Ri plasmid-mediated transformation, primarily in dicots; A. rubi (Hildebrand 1940) Starr and Weiss 1943, responsible for and cane ; and A. vitis Ophel and Kerr 1990, a grapevine-specific causing necrotic at the crown and roots. Non-pathogenic or saprophytic members, such as A. radiobacter (Beijerinck and van Delden 1902) Conn 1942, predominate in and rhizospheres without tumor induction but share genetic machinery adaptable for . Later-described species reflect expanded genomic scrutiny, including A. larrymoorei Bouzar and Jones 2001 from tumors, A. pusense (Panday et al. 2011) Mousavi et al. 2016 from reclassifications, A. nepotum Mantynen et al. 2020 from clinical isolates, and A. shirazense Mafakheri et al. 2022 from Iranian soils. Taxonomic fluidity persists, with polyphyletic groupings prompting ongoing phylogenomic re-evaluations, though core species like A. tumefaciens retain nomenclatural priority despite historical proposals for synonymy with A. radiobacter.

Phylogenetic Relationships

Agrobacterium is classified within the family Rhizobiaceae, order Rhizobiales, class . Phylogenetic analyses using 16S rRNA gene sequences position the genus as closely related to and Allorhizobium, with early studies revealing intermixing between Agrobacterium biovars and species due to shared ancestry in Rhizobiaceae. However, multi-locus sequence analyses (MLSA) employing housekeeping genes such as , atpD, and glnII delineate Agrobacterium as a distinct , supported by bootstrap values exceeding 90% in concatenated phylogenies. Whole-genome phylogenomics, based on core gene sets (e.g., 92-170 single-copy proteins), confirm Agrobacterium's in core-genome trees but highlight in broader Rhizobiaceae reconstructions, prompting reclassifications of peripheral . For instance, strains like oryzihabitans have been reassigned to Agrobacterium oryzihabitans comb. nov., while others, such as Agrobacterium albertimagni, transferred to Peteryoungia gen. nov., based on average identity (ANI) thresholds below 95-96% and core protein average amino acid identity (cpAAI) around 86%. These metrics underscore evolutionary divergence, with Agrobacterium exhibiting greater genetic distances from Ensifer (formerly Sinorhizobium) than from sub-clades. Internally, the genus comprises biovar 1 (tumorigenic, e.g., A. tumefaciens), biovar 2 (rhizogenic, e.g., A. rhizogenes), and biovar 3 (e.g., A. rubi), with biovar 1 encompassing at least nine genomic species differentiated by phylogeny and values ranging 92-99% within species but dropping below 90% across. Recent phylogenomic trees resolve biovar 1 as polyphyletic, reflecting of plasmids influencing pathogenicity but not core chromosomal evolution. This structure aligns Agrobacterium with ecological specialization in plant pathosymbiosis, distinct from nitrogen-fixing lineages.

Biological Characteristics

Morphology and Physiology

Agrobacterium species are Gram-negative, aerobic, non-spore-forming, rod-shaped typically measuring 0.6–1.0 μm in width and 1.5–3.0 μm in length. They exhibit unipolar growth, adding new cell envelope material preferentially at one pole during elongation. Cells are motile, propelled by polar flagella assembled from multiple proteins, including primary flagellin FlaA and secondary flagellins such as FlaB and , which contribute to filament curvature and swarming motility on surfaces. Mutants lacking these flagellar genes are non-motile and show reduced . Physiologically, Agrobacterium are chemoheterotrophic, utilizing diverse carbohydrates as carbon sources via pathways involving active cycling, which exceeds typical bacterial levels and supports efficient metabolism. Optimal growth occurs at 28°C, with doubling times of 2–4 hours under aerobic conditions in nutrient-rich media; elevated temperatures above 30°C impair functions like type IV secretion. They tolerate a pH range of 5.5–9.0 but grow best near neutrality ( 6.5–7.25), with acidic conditions ( 5.5) slowing proliferation compared to 7.0. Iron and homeostasis, regulated by the Fur protein, is critical for resistance and full metabolic competence. In soil environments, they persist saprophytically on root exudates, with motility and enabling colonization.

Habitat and Environmental Adaptations

Agrobacterium species, particularly A. tumefaciens, are ubiquitous soil-borne primarily inhabiting the of dicotyledonous worldwide, where they persist on root exudates and compete with other . They occur in bulk and weed across diverse agricultural and settings, with pathogenic strains maintaining long-term reservoirs even after removal of infected , as observed in Algerian plots over 16 years. Population densities fluctuate seasonally, exceeding 10^5 colony-forming units (CFU) per gram in spring and summer—conditions favoring isolation of virulent strains—while dropping below 140 CFU/g in fall and winter, influenced by and variants rather than or texture. Vertical distribution extends deeper into layers below 20 cm, with increasing bacterial counts at greater depths in certain host-associated environments like cherry orchards. These bacteria exhibit adaptations enabling survival across variable soil conditions as facultative pathogens transitioning between saprophytic and pathogenic lifestyles. via flagella facilitates toward monosaccharides, sugar acids, opines, and wound-released phenolics like acetosyringone, allowing navigation through soil water films to colonize roots. formation, mediated by unipolar polysaccharides and , promotes attachment to surfaces and persistence under nutrient limitations such as low , carbon, or . Acidic environments ( 5.5) induce specific sets—78 upregulated, 74 downregulated relative to 7.0—enhancing through systems like ExoR and ChvG-ChvI, alongside type VI for competition. Metabolic versatility supports exploitation of plant-derived opines, while catalase production counters oxidative stresses like during host interactions. Certain strains demonstrate tolerance to abiotic stresses, including high , with one isolate degrading 2000 mg/L under elevated salt conditions, though such traits vary across populations. Optimal occurs near 28°C, aligning with temperate regimes, but reduced activity persists at lower temperatures, underscoring broad occupancy. These traits collectively enable Agrobacterium to occupy diverse niches, from uninfected rhizospheres to tissues, evading defenses and outcompeting rivals.

Molecular Genetics

Ti and Ri Plasmids

The Ti (tumor-inducing) plasmid is a large, low-copy-number extrachromosomal replicon, typically around 200 kb in size, harbored by Agrobacterium tumefaciens and essential for crown gall pathogenesis. Its structure includes a transferable T-DNA region (approximately 20-30 kb total, divided into T<sub>L</sub> ~13 kb and T<sub>R</sub> ~8 kb), flanked by 25-bp border sequences and an overdrive enhancer; the T-DNA encodes oncogenes such as iaaH/iaaM for auxin biosynthesis, ipt for cytokinin production, and opine synthesis genes (e.g., ocs for octopine), which drive uncontrolled plant cell proliferation into tumors upon nuclear integration. Adjacent is the ~35 kb vir (virulence) locus with operons (virA to virG) directing a type IV secretion system (T4SS) for T-DNA export, responsive to plant wound signals via VirA/VirG two-component regulation. The backbone encompasses repABC for replication and partitioning (maintaining 1-5 copies per cell), tra/trb for conjugative transfer, and opine catabolism modules tailored to the plasmid type, such as octopine (pTiA6) or nopaline (pTiC58), providing the bacterium a selective carbon/nitrogen source from host tumors. The (root-inducing) plasmid, found in Agrobacterium rhizogenes (syn. rhizogenes), shares a broadly similar modular architecture but induces hairy disease, with one fully sequenced example measuring 217,594 bp. Its T-DNA is often bipartite, comprising a T<sub>L</sub> (~18 kb) with rol (root loci) genes—rolA, rolB, rolC, rolD—that hypersensitize cells to , promoting plagiotropic proliferation without requiring overproduction, and a T<sub>R</sub> (~5 kb) encoding (aux1/aux2) and genes (e.g., agropine, mikimopine types). Like Ti plasmids, includes conserved vir genes for T-DNA processing and T4SS-mediated delivery, plus a backbone for replication (repABC-like), conjugation, and utilization, enabling stable maintenance and horizontal transfer. The rolB/rolC genes, in particular, encode that release active auxins from conjugates, driving rapid, branched growth from wound sites. Ti and Ri plasmids exhibit mosaic evolutionary histories marked by recombination and , with overlapping vir and backbone functions but divergent T-DNAs: Ti emphasizes tumorigenic hormone excess for formation, while Ri prioritizes activation via rol-mediated signaling alterations, reflecting exploitation strategies in dicots. Both lack essential chromosomal genes, relying on the bacterium's core for basic , and their opine-specific enforces ecological niches by limiting competitors. These plasmids' discovery in the 1970s-1980s, via tumor/root phenotyping and plasmid curing experiments, underscored their in , with T-DNA integration confirmed by Southern hybridization and sequencing.
FeatureTi Plasmid (A. tumefaciens)Ri Plasmid (A. rhizogenes)
Primary EffectCrown galls (tumors)Hairy roots
Key T-DNA Genesiaa, ipt (hormones); opine synth.rolA/B/C/D (auxin sensitivity); aux (auxin synth.)
Opine TypesOctopine, nopalineAgropine, mikimopine, cucumopine
Size (typical)~200 kb~200-220 kb

T-DNA Transfer Mechanism

The T-DNA transfer mechanism in begins with the perception of plant-derived signals, such as like acetosyringone released from wounded plant tissues. These signals are detected by the VirA sensor , which autophosphorylates and transfers the phosphate to the VirG response regulator, activating transcription of the vir operons on the . This induction, occurring within hours of bacterial attachment to plant cells, coordinates the expression of over 20 vir genes essential for DNA mobilization and export. Processing of the T-DNA involves site-specific nicking at the 25-base pair right border (RB) and left border (LB) sequences by the VirD2 endonuclease, assisted by VirD1. VirD2 forms a covalent phosphotyrosine linkage to the 5' end of the resulting single-stranded T-strand (approximately 20-35 kb), displacing the complementary strand and initiating transfer in the 5' to 3' direction. The T-strand is then exported from the bacterium into the plant cell through the VirB/VirD4 type IV secretion system (T4SS), a multiprotein complex analogous to conjugative pili in bacterial , comprising 11 VirB proteins that assemble a and pilus-like for translocation across both inner and outer membranes. Accessory proteins like VirC1 and VirC2 enhance efficiency by stabilizing border recognition via overdrive sequences upstream of the RB. Upon entry into the plant cytoplasm, the T-strand forms a protective T-complex, coated by VirE2 single-stranded DNA-binding proteins secreted separately via the T4SS, which shield it from host exonucleases and endonucleases. VirD2, bearing nuclear localization signals (NLS), directs the complex toward the nucleus by interacting with plant importin α, while VirE2 may recruit additional factors like VirF for uncoating or host VIP1 for histone association, though the precise composition and dynamics of the T-complex remain debated due to varying experimental evidence in different plant systems. Efflux of the T-strand likely occurs through plant membrane pores or facilitated by the T4SS , delivering the DNA for eventual nuclear import and genomic integration.

Genome Structure and Variability

The genome of strain C58, a widely studied model, totals 5.67 megabases (Mb) and consists of a circular (2.8 Mb), a linear (2.1 Mb), the tumor-inducing (214 kilobases), and a cryptic pAtC58 (2.0 Mb). This quadripartite architecture, first fully sequenced in 2001, encodes approximately 5,400 protein-coding genes, with the linear featuring covalently closed hairpin maintained by a for replication and stability. The harbors the (T-DNA) region and virulence genes essential for plant transformation, while the cryptic shares replication origins with the circular , suggesting evolutionary fluidity among replicons. Genomic variability is pronounced across Agrobacterium strains and species, with total sizes ranging from 5 to over 7 due to differences in configurations and complements. For instance, 1D1609 has a circular of 3.06 and a linear one of 2.33 , reflecting strain-specific expansions in genes or insertions. Linear chromosomes, in , arise in some lineages via inversions or plasmid-chromosome fusions, impacting and competitiveness; recent analyses (2025) link such architectures to altered type VI secretion systems and interaction efficiency. The genus encompasses genomospecies G1–G8, with pathogenic strains (e.g., biovar 1) distinguished by or plasmids absent in non-pathogenic relatives, driving accessory diversity estimated from over 350 sequenced isolates. studies of related taxa like A. fabrum reveal core chromosomes of 4.8–5.0 Mb with variable plasmids encoding host-specific traits, such as rhizogenic agrocin opposition in biovar 2 strains, underscoring plasmid-mediated as a key variability mechanism. consistently hovers around 59%, but inter-strain recombination in loci generates phenotypic heterogeneity, as seen in diverse T-DNA borders across isolates.

Pathogenicity and Interactions

Plant Pathogenesis

, the primary species responsible for plant pathogenesis, induces crown gall disease, characterized by neoplastic growths at the transition zone between root and stem or along injured vascular tissues. These tumors arise from the bacterium's transfer of (T-DNA) from its tumor-inducing ( into susceptible plant cells, leading to unregulated due to the expression of bacterial oncogenes encoding biosynthetic enzymes. The disease affects a wide range of dicotyledonous , including economically important species such as grapes, roses, and stone fruits, with symptoms typically manifesting as hard, woody that disrupt and water transport. Infection initiates at wound sites on roots or stems, where soil-dwelling Agrobacterium cells are drawn by to exuded phenolics like acetosyringone, which bind to the VirA/VirG two-component system on the bacterial membrane, activating vir gene expression on the . Bacterial attachment to cells involves fibrils and surface proteins, facilitating close contact necessary for DNA export. The type IV secretion system (T4SS), encoded by virB and virD operons, then exports a single-stranded T-DNA covalently attached to VirD2 protein, which is further protected by VirE2 proteins during transit through the cell and membrane. Upon entry into the cytoplasm, the T-complex is transported to the via interactions with factors like VIP1 and cyclophilins, where VirD2 and VirE2 guide integration into the at random sites, often involving DNA repair pathways such as . Integrated T-DNA expresses iaaH, iaaM for biosynthesis, ipt for , and ocs genes for —unique derivatives that provide a carbon and source exclusively utilizable by Agrobacterium, establishing a selective niche. This hormonal imbalance causes , meristem-like proliferation, and formation, while opine production sustains bacterial populations without eliciting strong immune responses in compatible . Plant defenses, including pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) via recognition of bacterial or cold shock proteins, can limit efficiency, but Agrobacterium counters through effector proteins like VirE3 and VirD5 that suppress host defenses or enhance targeting. In resistant plants or monocots, incomplete T-DNA integration or absent hormone responsiveness prevents development, highlighting host-specific barriers to . Disease progression is temperature-dependent, optimal at 25–28°C, and persist as perennial sources of inoculum, releasing into via .

Infections in Animals and Humans

Agrobacterium species, primarily known as plant pathogens, rarely cause infections in humans, acting as opportunistic agents in immunocompromised hosts or those with indwelling medical devices such as catheters. Clinical manifestations include bacteremia, , , and wound infections, often in patients with underlying conditions like cancer, , or prosthetic devices. Between 2008 and 2019, 22 cases of Agrobacterium bacteremia were reported in , predominantly affecting elderly patients with comorbidities and central venous catheters, with a of 32% despite . These infections respond variably to antibiotics like beta-lactams, aminoglycosides, and tetracyclines, though resistance patterns, including to in some strains, complicate . Unlike in plants, no tumor formation akin to crown occurs in human infections, as T-DNA transfer efficiency into mammalian cells is negligible . In animals, documented natural infections by Agrobacterium are scarce and typically limited to experimental models rather than clinical veterinary cases. In mice, intravenous inoculation of Agrobacterium tumefaciens induces transient bacteremia but fails to produce tumors or stable genetic transformation, highlighting the bacterium's poor adaptation to mammalian hosts compared to plants. Opportunistic isolation from animal specimens mirrors human patterns, occurring in immunocompromised or device-associated contexts, but lacks the prevalence or pathogenicity seen in plants; for instance, no widespread reports exist of galls or hairy roots in non-plant species. Experimental studies demonstrate Agrobacterium's ability to attach to and transiently transform cultured mammalian cells, such as fibroblasts or HeLa cells, yet this does not translate to sustained infection or disease in whole animals. Overall, Agrobacterium's zoonotic potential remains low, with infections confined to rare, non-pathognomonic bacteremia rather than establishing as a significant animal pathogen.

Ecological Role and Symbioses

Agrobacterium species are soil-borne that colonize the of plants worldwide, persisting in diverse environmental conditions through adaptations such as formation and resistance to abiotic stresses like and oxidative damage. Their populations exhibit seasonal fluctuations and long-term stability in soil reservoirs, with pathogenic strains often originating from uninfected rhizospheres before infecting wounded hosts. In non-host environments, they utilize and toward plant exudates, including phenolics like acetosyringone, to access nutrients such as sugars and organic acids. Ecologically, Agrobacterium functions as an opportunistic , inducing crown galls via A. tumefaciens or hairy roots via A. rhizogenes upon , which creates specialized niches rich in exploitable resources. Within these tumors, bacterial densities reach 10⁸–10⁹ colony-forming units per gram of fresh weight, sustained by upregulated of host-provided sugars (e.g., glucose at 14.9 μmol/g), (elevated ninefold over uninfected ), phosphate (117 μmol/g), and opines—unique compounds synthesized by the reprogrammed cells. The Ti or Ri plasmids enable opine utilization, conferring a competitive edge in the and facilitating plasmid conjugation via , thus promoting and persistence. Pathogenic strains outcompete avirulent ones in opine-enriched environments but decline after host , highlighting context-dependent fitness costs of factors. The interaction with plants constitutes a parasitic biotrophy, where Agrobacterium transfers T-DNA to integrate into the host , diverting metabolism toward tumor formation and production without evident benefits to the host. This genetic allows endophytic and resource exploitation, with remodeling their surfaces (e.g., via exopolysaccharides like succinoglucan and curdlan) for and evasion. No mutualistic symbioses are documented; instead, opines selectively enrich for opine-degrading microbes, including avirulent competitors, altering dynamics. Agrobacterium further competes with other using type VI secretion systems and siderophores, reinforcing its role in shaping ecology.

Biotechnology Applications

Plant Genetic Transformation

Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation exploits the bacterium's natural DNA transfer capability to introduce foreign genes into plant cells, enabling stable integration into the nuclear genome. This method has become the dominant technique for plant genetic engineering since the early 1980s, when initial reports demonstrated its use in generating transgenic and plants. The transformation protocol typically involves preparing plant explants, such as leaf disks from or immature embryos from cereals, and co-cultivating them with Agrobacterium harboring a binary T-DNA vector under acetosyringone to activate genes. Post-co-cultivation, explants are transferred to selective media containing antibiotics like kanamycin (50–100 mg/L) or herbicides to eliminate non-transformed cells and Agrobacterium, followed by hormone-supplemented regeneration media to induce shoot and root formation. Transformation success is verified via , Southern blotting, or expression, such as GUS or GFP, confirming T-DNA integration at random chromosomal loci. Efficiency varies by plant type: dicotyledons like and achieve 30–90% transformation rates with optimized protocols, attributed to susceptible cell walls and responsive regeneration systems, whereas monocotyledons like and often yield 1–20%, limited by phenolic barriers, dependency, and poor embryogenic induction. Enhancements include sonication-assisted Agrobacterium infiltration or vacuum infiltration for floral dip methods in Arabidopsis, boosting rates to near 100% in susceptible ecotypes. This approach underpins biotechnology applications in over 190 plant species, facilitating traits like pest resistance in (introduced 1996) and glyphosate tolerance in soybeans (1994), which collectively span millions of hectares globally. Limitations persist in polyploid crops and elite lines, prompting ongoing refinements like co-expression of plant host factors to mimic dicot susceptibility in monocots.

Vector Systems and Disarmed Strains

Vector systems for Agrobacterium-mediated plant genetic transformation primarily utilize binary plasmids, which decouple the (T-DNA) region from the () genes required for DNA transfer. In this system, the binary vector contains the T-DNA borders flanking the gene of interest, along with bacterial selectable markers and origins of replication compatible with both Escherichia coli and Agrobacterium, while a separate helper plasmid provides the genes. This separation, developed in the early 1980s, facilitates cloning and manipulation of constructs in E. coli before or conjugation into Agrobacterium. Disarmed Agrobacterium strains are engineered by modifying the tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid to eliminate the native T-DNA genes responsible for oncogenicity, such as those encoding auxin and cytokinin biosynthesis enzymes (e.g., iaaH, iaaM, ipt) and opine synthases, thereby preventing tumor formation in transformed plants. These strains retain the vir region for efficient T-DNA mobilization but introduce the binary vector's custom T-DNA, enabling stable, non-tumorigenic integration of foreign DNA into the plant genome. Common disarmed strains include GV3101, derived from C58 with a disarmed pTiC58, and LBA4404, which exhibit broad host ranges and high transformation efficiencies for dicots. The binary system's modularity supports versatile applications, including promoter analysis and multigene cassettes, though limitations like low copy number can affect transformation efficiency, prompting optimizations such as supernumerary integration for higher stability. Disarmed strains minimize risks by abolishing pathogenicity, with regulatory approvals for commercial use in crops like soybeans and confirming their safety and efficacy.

Recent Engineering Advances

Recent engineering advances in Agrobacterium have emphasized modifications and optimizations to boost T-DNA delivery efficiency, mitigate plant immune responses, and minimize post- bacterial overgrowth. In 2024, researchers developed auxotrophic s such as EHA105Thy- and LBA4404T1 by inactivating the thyA via allelic exchange and the INTEGRATE system, enabling reduced use during co-cultivation while maintaining comparable T-DNA transfer capabilities to wild-type s. These s address overgrowth issues in crops like , where frequencies reached 33.3% with complementary ternary helper plasmids incorporating additional vir s such as virA from pTiBo542. Vector system enhancements have further improved performance. Binary vector copy number engineering through of origins like and RK2 yielded variants with up to 49 copies per cell, resulting in a 28-fold increase in transient GFP expression in and 60% higher stable transformation in . Ternary vector systems, advanced in parallel, facilitate co-delivery of regeneration-promoting genes, expanding applicability to recalcitrant species. Genome engineering tools for Agrobacterium itself have advanced rapidly. The INTEGRATE CRISPR-associated system, implemented in 2025, enabled efficient 15-kb T-DNA deletions and auxotroph creation in strains like A. rhizogenes K599, providing a standardized workflow for and custom strain development. Cytidine base editing, refined from 2021 tools, supports targeted mutagenesis of genes like recA for safer, marker-free transformations. A novel strain, Agrobacterium fabrum str. 1D1416 identified in 2024, enhances transformation by improving T-DNA delivery and reducing . These innovations collectively broaden Agrobacterium's utility in precise plant .

Research History

Discovery and Early Studies

Crown gall disease, manifesting as neoplastic growths at wound sites on dicotyledonous plants, was first systematically described in the . Italian anatomist Marcello Malpighi noted such tumorous formations in 1679, proposing they arose from spontaneous cellular proliferation without identifying a causal agent. By the mid-19th century, these were recognized on grapevines in , where botanists Fabre and Dunal termed the condition "broussin" in , highlighting its economic impact on . In 1897, Italian botanist Fridiano Cavara isolated a bacterium from crown on grapevines in , , and demonstrated its capacity to induce tumors upon re-inoculation into healthy , marking the first association of a microbial agent with the disease. This finding prompted further isolations, including by George C. Hedgcock from American grapevines in 1904, who cultured the organism and reported its role in gall formation by 1910. The causal relationship was definitively established in 1907 by USDA plant pathologists Erwin F. Smith and C.O. Townsend, who isolated the bacterium from galls, named it Bacterium tumefaciens, and fulfilled through controlled inoculations on healthy plants, reproducing the disease symptoms and reisolating the identical organism. Their work, published , confirmed B. tumefaciens—a Gram-negative bacterium—as the etiologic agent of crown gall across diverse host species, including over 140 . Early 20th-century studies focused on disease transmission and host range. Smith extended observations in 1911, showing B. tumefaciens induced in herbaceous beyond woody species. Hypotheses on initially centered on microbial metabolites; in 1917, Smith proposed that bacterial production of stimulated uncontrolled plant cell division. By the , links emerged to plant growth regulators, with F.A.F.C. Went's 1926 isolation of correlating tumor expansion to hormonal imbalances. In the 1940s, Armin Braun's experiments at the Rockefeller Institute revealed that crown galls could persist and proliferate in bacteria-free tissue cultures, indicating a stable, heritable alteration in host cells rather than ongoing bacterial presence. Braun and collaborators demonstrated in 1942–1943 that avirulent strains or phytohormone applications could induce tumor-like growth, while temperature-sensitive assays suggested a "tumor-inducing principle" was transferred within hours of infection, foreshadowing later genetic insights without yet identifying DNA transfer. These findings shifted early paradigms from toxin-based models to concepts of enduring cellular transformation.

Key Milestones in Understanding

In 1897, Italian botanist Fridiano Cavara first isolated Agrobacterium species from tumorous galls on plants, marking the initial recognition of the bacterium's association with plant pathology. By 1907, USDA researchers Erwin F. Smith and C. O. Townsend fulfilled Koch's postulates, conclusively demonstrating that Agrobacterium tumefaciens (then named Bacterium tumefaciens) causes crown gall disease in dicotyledonous plants through experimental inoculation and reisolation. These findings established A. tumefaciens as a soil-borne pathogen capable of inducing neoplastic growths at wound sites, though the underlying mechanism remained obscure for decades, with early studies attributing tumor formation to bacterial toxins or enzymes rather than genetic alteration. The molecular basis of pathogenicity emerged in the 1970s, beginning with the 1974 identification of the tumor-inducing (Ti) plasmid, a large (~200 kb) extrachromosomal replicon in virulent strains essential for gall formation, as shown by cure experiments removing the plasmid and abolishing virulence. In 1977, Mary-Dell Chilton, Eugene Nester, and colleagues at the University of Washington used Southern hybridization to prove that a defined ~20 kb segment of the Ti plasmid, designated T-DNA (transferred DNA), integrates stably into the host plant's nuclear genome, directly causing uncontrolled cell proliferation via oncogene expression. This revelation shifted understanding from A. tumefaciens as a mere pathogen to a natural vector for interkingdom DNA transfer, with T-DNA borders defined by 25 bp imperfect repeats essential for excision and mobilization. Subsequent milestones clarified the transfer process: in the late 1970s, teams led by Marc Van Montagu and Jeff Schell identified the vir (virulence) region on the , comprising ~35 operons activated by plant wound signals like acetosyringone via the VirA/VirG two-component system. By the 1980s, studies revealed a type IV secretion system (T4SS) encoded by virB and virD genes exports a T-DNA-protein complex, including VirD2-bound single-stranded T-DNA and effector proteins like VirE2, into plant cells, mimicking . Integration occurs via host , with random insertion sites, as quantified in model plants like and . These insights, validated across laboratories, underscored Agrobacterium's specificity for dicots initially, later extended to monocots through refinements.

References

  1. [1]
    Agrobacterium is a definable genus of the family Rhizobiaceae
    Jan 9, 2003 · The agrobacteria, which are members of the family Rhizobiaceae, can be differentiated into at least three biovars, corresponding to species ...
  2. [2]
    Agrobacterium - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Agrobacterium refers to a genus of soil bacteria that can infect susceptible plants and genetically transform them, with certain species like A. tumefaciens ...
  3. [3]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens: a Transformative Agent for ...
    Mar 9, 2023 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens incites the formation of readily visible macroscopic structures known as crown galls on plant tissues that it infects.
  4. [4]
    16.5F: Agrobacterium and Crown Gall Disease - Biology LibreTexts
    Nov 23, 2024 · The bacteria causes tumors on the stem of its host. Agrobacterium tumefaciens manipulates its hosts by transferring a DNA plasmid to the cells ...
  5. [5]
    Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation: the Biology behind ...
    In this review, I describe how scientists utilized knowledge of basic Agrobacterium biology to develop Agrobacterium as a “tool” for plant genetic engineering.
  6. [6]
    Agrobacterium: nature's genetic engineer - Frontiers
    Agrobacterium is a truly remarkable organism. Its study over the last 100 years has revolutionized plant molecular genetics, and has given birth to a whole new ...Abstract · Introduction · The Molecular Era Begins · Plant Signal Molecules
  7. [7]
    Crown gall | UMN Extension
    Crown gall is caused by the bacterial plant pathogen, Agrobacterium tumefaciens. Crown gall bacteria enter plant roots through wounds. Wounds may have been ...
  8. [8]
    Engineering Agrobacterium for improved plant transformation
    Agrobacterium-mediated transformation (AMT) remains the most common approach to insert DNA into plant cells, and is also an important means to stimulate ...
  9. [9]
  10. [10]
    Genus: Agrobacterium - LPSN
    Proposal for rejection of Agrobacterium tumefaciens and revised descriptions for the genus Agrobacterium and for Agrobacterium radiobacter and Agrobacterium ...
  11. [11]
    Species: Agrobacterium tumefaciens - LPSN
    (1993), this species is a later heterotypic synonym of Agrobacterium radiobacter (Beijerinck and van Delden 1902) Conn 1942 (Approved Lists 1980). Publication: ...
  12. [12]
  13. [13]
  14. [14]
    History and current taxonomic status of genus Agrobacterium
    The genus Agrobacterium was created a century ago by Conn who included it in the family Rhizobiaceae together with the genus Rhizobium.
  15. [15]
  16. [16]
    Species: Agrobacterium rhizogenes - LPSN
    Name: Agrobacterium rhizogenes (Riker et al. 1930) Conn 1942 (Approved Lists 1980) Category: Species Proposed as: comb. nov. Basonym: "Phytomonas rhizogenes"
  17. [17]
    Species: Agrobacterium rubi - LPSN
    homotypic synonym, not validly published, basonym of name in Approved Lists ... Journal of Plant Pathology 2010; 92:551-592. Parent taxon: Agrobacterium Conn 1942 ...
  18. [18]
    History and current taxonomic status of genus Agrobacterium
    The genus Agrobacterium was created a century ago by Conn who included it in the family Rhizobiaceae together with the genus Rhizobium.
  19. [19]
    Species: Agrobacterium radiobacter - LPSN
    Name: Agrobacterium radiobacter (Beijerinck and van Delden 1902) Conn 1942 (Approved Lists 1980) Category: Species Proposed as: comb. nov.
  20. [20]
    Species: Agrobacterium larrymoorei - LPSN
    Assigned by: Bouzar H, Jones JB. Agrobacterium larrymoorei sp. nov., a pathogen isolated from aerial tumours of Ficus benjamina. Int J Syst Evol Microbiol 2001; ...
  21. [21]
    Species: Agrobacterium pusense - LPSN
    Name: Agrobacterium pusense (Panday et al. 2011) Mousavi et al. 2016. Category: Species. Proposed as: comb. nov. Basonym: Rhizobium pusense Panday et al.
  22. [22]
    Species: Agrobacterium nepotum - LPSN
    This name is on the List of Recommended Names for bacteria of medical importance (LoRN) as the name to be applied to this species. The name is on LoRN because ...
  23. [23]
    Species: Agrobacterium shirazense - LPSN
    Name: Agrobacterium shirazense Mafakheri et al. 2022. Category: Species. Proposed as: sp. nov. Etymology: shi.ra.zen'se. N.L. neut. adj. shirazense , named ...
  24. [24]
    Evaluation of sequence-based tools to gather more insight into the ...
    In this study, we evaluated different phylogenetic analysis approaches for their use to improve Agrobacterium taxonomy and tried to gain more insight in the ...
  25. [25]
    Approach to an Improved Taxonomy of the genus Agrobacterium
    It is proposed to limit the genus Agrobacterium to two, or possibly three, species: (I) Agrobacterium radiobacter and its phytopathogenic variety A. radiobacter ...
  26. [26]
    Taxonomy of Rhizobiaceae revisited: proposal of a new framework ...
    The alphaproteobacterial family Rhizobiaceae is highly diverse, with 168 species with validly published names classified into 17 genera with validly ...
  27. [27]
  28. [28]
    Phylogenomic reappraisal of the family Rhizobiaceae at the genus ...
    In this study, we performed analyses of genome-based phylogeny and phylogenomic metrics to review the relationships of 155-type strains within the family ...
  29. [29]
    Identification of Genomic Species in Agrobacterium Biovar 1 by ...
    Biovar 1 of the genus Agrobacterium consists of at least nine genomic species that have not yet received accepted species names.
  30. [30]
    Species boundaries in the Agrobacterium tumefaciens complex and ...
    May 21, 2021 · Based on the fully resolved phylogeny, we further investigated the evolution of genes critical in Agrobacterium fitness and ecology. For the ...
  31. [31]
    A Genomic Analysis of Tumor Development and Source-Sink ... - NIH
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a Gram-negative rod-shaped bacterium that is commonly found in the rhizosphere of many plants, where it survives on root exudates.
  32. [32]
    Loss of PodJ in Agrobacterium tumefaciens Leads to Ectopic Polar ...
    Jun 13, 2016 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens is a rod-shaped Gram-negative bacterium that elongates by unipolar addition of new cell envelope material.
  33. [33]
    Characterization of flagella genes of Agrobacterium tumefaciens ...
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens has three flagella genes (flaA, flaB, flaC) for motility. A non-motile strain with deleted fla genes had reduced virulence.
  34. [34]
    Multiple Flagellin Proteins Have Distinct and Synergistic Roles in ...
    FlaA and at least one other secondary flagellin are required for curved flagellar filaments and can confer wild-type motility. In order to further ...
  35. [35]
    Carbohydrate Metabolism in Agrobacterium tumefaciens - PMC
    The activity of pentose cycling (PC) reactions in Agrobacterium tumefaciens is much greater than that normally found in bacteria, and in this regard the ...
  36. [36]
    UNIT 3D.1 Laboratory Maintenance of Agrobacterium - PMC - NIH
    Agrobacterium grows at 28°C, short-term stored on agar at 4°C, and long-term frozen at -80°C in glycerol or DMSO.Missing: nutrition | Show results with:nutrition
  37. [37]
    Elevated Temperature Differentially Affects Virulence, VirB Protein ...
    Growth temperature affects the virulence functions of many pathogenic bacteria. In concert with other stimuli, such as pH and ionic composition of the ...Missing: nutrition | Show results with:nutrition
  38. [38]
    Agrobacterium growth under acidic (pH 5.5) and neutral (pH 7.0)...
    Agrobacterium growth under acidic (pH 5.5) and neutral (pH 7.0) conditions. Cells were grown in MG/L medium overnight, washed five times with 0.85% NaCl, ...
  39. [39]
    [PDF] Media Development for Large Scale Agrobacterium tumefaciens ...
    The optimal pH for Agrobacterium growth has been reported in the range from 6.5 20 to 7.25 12, with pH 7.0 being the most commonly used in lab-scale growth.
  40. [40]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens fur Has Important Physiological Roles in ...
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens fur Has Important Physiological Roles in Iron and Manganese Homeostasis, the Oxidative Stress Response, and Full Virulence.
  41. [41]
    Seasonal Fluctuations and Long-Term Persistence of Pathogenic ...
    Pathogenic strains could be isolated only when densities of Agrobacterium-like isolates were over 105 CFU/g in bulk soil and in the rhizosphere (Fig. 1). When ...
  42. [42]
    (PDF) Technology for Distribution and Control of Agrobacterium ...
    Oct 13, 2024 · Vertically, the pathogen is mainly distributed in the soil layer below 20 cm, and the amount of bacteria increases at greater depths.
  43. [43]
    Ecological and evolutionary dynamics of a model facultative pathogen
    Motility, chemotaxis, and vir-induction​​ Like other facultative pathogens, agrobacteria experience a wide range of environments. These include soil reservoirs, ...Missing: habitat | Show results with:habitat
  44. [44]
    Transcriptome Profiling and Functional Analysis of Agrobacterium ...
    Overall, 78 genes were induced and 74 genes were repressed significantly under acidic conditions (pH 5.5) compared to neutral conditions (pH 7.0).
  45. [45]
    (PDF) Isolation and characterization of a high salt-tolerant and ...
    Aug 6, 2025 · Salt tolerance test showed that A. tumefaciens BZ8 grew well and could thoroughly degrade 2000 mg/L glyphosate in 36 h if the concentration of ...<|separator|>
  46. [46]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens fitness genes involved in the ...
    Oct 16, 2021 · The pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens provokes irreversible damage on plants via genetic modification of the host leading to formation of galls ...
  47. [47]
    Pan-Chromosome and Comparative Analysis of Agrobacterium ...
    Feb 28, 2023 · They have evolved the ability to adapt to diverse ecological niches, escape plant defenses, and outcompete coexisting bacteria.
  48. [48]
    The Agrobacterium Ti Plasmids - PMC - PubMed Central - NIH
    All Ti plasmids code for functions associated with i) plasmid replication and maintenance, ii) conjugative transfer, iii) virulence, iv) opine utilization, and ...
  49. [49]
    The complete nucleotide sequence of a plant root-inducing (Ri ...
    The complete nucleotide sequence of a plant root-inducing (Ri) plasmid indicates its chimeric structure and evolutionary relationship between tumor-inducing (Ti) ...Missing: peer | Show results with:peer
  50. [50]
    Agrobacterium rhizogenes: paving the road to research and ... - NIH
    A. rhizogenes is a Gram-negative bacterium, which contains the root-inducing (Ri) plasmid that induces plants to produce hairy roots from wounds (Moore et al., ...
  51. [51]
    Pathways of DNA Transfer to Plants from Agrobacterium ... - NIH
    The ability of Agrobacterium to transfer DNA, either for transient expression or stable genetic transformation, is widely used as a tool in research and ...
  52. [52]
    Plant DNA Repair and Agrobacterium T−DNA Integration - MDPI
    The pathway of T-DNA transfer from Agrobacterium to plant cells, and its ultimate integration into the plant genome, starts with nicking the T-DNA region of a ...
  53. [53]
    The Genome of the Natural Genetic Engineer Agrobacterium ...
    The 5.67-megabase genome of the plant pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens C58 consists of a circular chromosome, a linear chromosome, and two plasmids.
  54. [54]
    Conformation and dynamic interactions of the multipartite genome in ...
    Jan 31, 2022 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens has a 2.8-Mb circular chromosome (Ch1), a 2.1-Mb linear chromosome (Ch2), and two large plasmids (pAt and pTi).
  55. [55]
    Genome Sequences of Three Agrobacterium Biovars Help Elucidate ...
    Members of the Rhizobiaceae also have diverse genome architectures that include single chromosomes, multiple chromosomes, and plasmids of various sizes.
  56. [56]
    Complete Genome Sequence of Agrobacterium tumefaciens 1D1609
    Apr 19, 2018 · The complete genome sequence of A. tumefaciens 1D1609 consists of one circular chromosome (3,058,772 bp), one linear chromosome (2,329,227 bp), ...Missing: structure | Show results with:structure
  57. [57]
    Chromosome architecture affects virulence and competitiveness in ...
    Oct 3, 2025 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens naturally transfers its DNA into plant genomes, a capability that has been harnessed as a powerful tool for plant ...
  58. [58]
    Linear dicentric chromosomes in bacterial natural isolates reveal ...
    May 20, 2025 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens lineages often contain a circular chromosome (Ch1), a linear chromosome (Ch2), and multiple plasmids.
  59. [59]
    Agrobacterium in the Genomics Age - PMC - NIH
    (5) How does Agrobacterium manipulate host metabolism for its advantage? (6) How does Agrobacterium interact with other organisms in the rhizosphere? (7) To ...
  60. [60]
    Engineering Agrobacterium for improved plant transformation - PMC
    Mar 6, 2025 · This review highlights recent advances in Agrobacterium genomics, novel tools to “engineer the engineer,” and ways that T‐DNA derived genes are being used to ...
  61. [61]
    The Ti Plasmid, Driver of Agrobacterium Pathogenesis - APS Journals
    Apr 26, 2023 · The Ti plasmid is a tumor-inducing plasmid in Agrobacterium, discovered as the first genetic element contributing to tumorigenicity.
  62. [62]
    [PDF] Chapter 00177 - Crown Galls Tumors
    Crown gall is a plant tumor disease caused by Agrobacterium tumefaciens, resulting in non-self-limiting tissue overgrowth on roots and stems.
  63. [63]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens responses to plant-derived signaling ...
    Agrobacterium pathogenicity is largely attributed to its evolved capabilities of precise recognition and response to plant-derived chemical signals.
  64. [64]
    New insights into an old story: Agrobacterium‐induced tumour ...
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens causes tumour formation in plants. Plant signals induce in the bacteria the expression of a range of virulence (Vir) proteins.Agrobacterium Vir Gene... · Nuclear Transport Of The... · Agrobacterium And The Plant...
  65. [65]
    Agrobacterium-Mediated Plant Transformation: Biology ... - BioOne
    Oct 20, 2017 · Plant genetic transformation heavily relies on the bacterial pathogen Agrobacterium tumefaciens as a powerful tool to deliver genes of interest ...
  66. [66]
    Agrobacterium infection and plant defense—transformation success ...
    This soil-borne pathogen has the unique capability to transfer DNA (T-DNA) into plant systems. Gene transfer involves both bacterial and host factors, and it is ...
  67. [67]
    Virulence and Ecology of Agrobacteria in the Context of Evolutionary ...
    Sep 5, 2023 · Among plant-associated bacteria, agrobacteria occupy a special place. These bacteria are feared in the field as agricultural pathogens.
  68. [68]
    Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer: recent advancements and ...
    Jul 11, 2022 · To overcome PTI, the pathogen makes plant cells more susceptible to infection using numerous virulence effector proteins. This process of ...Agrobacterium-Mediated Gene... · Introduction · Mapk Signalling
  69. [69]
    Agrobacterium virulence factors induce the expression of host DNA ...
    Oct 17, 2024 · This study aimed to investigate whether the plant DNA damage levels and DNA damage response (DDR) are regulated during Agrobacterium infection.
  70. [70]
    [PDF] Agrobacterium tumefaciens as an agent of disease
    Twenty-six years ago it was found that the common soil bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens is capable of extraordinary feats of interkingdom genetic ...
  71. [71]
    Infections with the unusual human pathogens Agrobacterium ...
    We conclude that Agrobacterium species and O. anthropi can be pathogenic in immunocompromised patients with permanent catheters.
  72. [72]
    Agrobacterium infections in humans: experience at one hospital and ...
    We report six cases at one hospital over a 6 1/2-year period in which infection was accompanied by a compatible clinical syndrome and review 19 cases reported ...
  73. [73]
    Agrobacterium spp. nosocomial outbreak assessment using rapid ...
    Nov 4, 2019 · They are rare opportunistic human pathogens, with the majority of infections reported in immunocompromised hosts, such as oncology patients, ...
  74. [74]
    Agrobacterium species bacteraemia, Switzerland, 2008 to 2019
    Mar 9, 2022 · Agrobacterium species are recognized as rare opportunistic human pathogens, which affect mostly immunocompromised patients or patients with ...<|separator|>
  75. [75]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens-Induced Bacteraemia Does Not Lead to ...
    Jun 4, 2008 · tumefaciens genetically transforms cultured mammalian cells inefficiently [20], probably at the levels undetectable in whole animal tissues.
  76. [76]
    Crossing the kingdom border: Human diseases caused by plant ...
    Apr 19, 2020 · In addition to infection with Agrobacterium and Erwinia species, several Burkholderia and Pantoea species are also capable of infecting animal ...<|separator|>
  77. [77]
    Genetic transformation of HeLa cells by Agrobacterium - PubMed
    Can Agrobacterium, then, also infect animal cells? Here, we report that Agrobacterium attaches to and genetically transforms several types of human cells.
  78. [78]
    Ecological Conditions and Molecular Determinants Involved in ...
    Jul 30, 2019 · Bacteria belonging to the Agrobacterium genus are soil-borne and can colonize the rhizosphere. These bacteria are also well known as ...
  79. [79]
    Ecological and evolutionary dynamics of a model facultative ...
    Nov 3, 2017 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens, the causative agent for crown gall disease of plants has proven a productive model for many aspects of interactions ...Introduction · Ecology shapes pathogen... · Consequences of ecological...
  80. [80]
    Lifestyle of the biotroph Agrobacterium tumefaciens in the ecological ...
    Apr 27, 2018 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens constructs an ecological niche in its host plant by transferring the T-DNA from its Ti plasmid into the host genome ...Missing: habitat | Show results with:habitat
  81. [81]
    Ecological dynamics and complex interactions of Agrobacterium ...
    As with many pathogenic bacteria, agrobacterial plant pathogens carry most of their virulence functions on a horizontally transmissible genetic element.
  82. [82]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens-Mediated Plant Transformation: A Review
    Jun 20, 2023 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated plant transformation is the most dominant technique for the transformation of plants.
  83. [83]
    [PDF] Agrobacterium-Mediated Genetic Transformation - IntechOpen
    Sep 6, 2011 · Southern hybridization turned out to prove that the bacterial DNA transferred to host cells originates from the Ti plasmid and ultimately.
  84. [84]
    Recent progress in Agrobacterium-mediated cereal transformation
    In this review, we provide a brief overview of the history of Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation and focus on the most recent progress to improve the ...
  85. [85]
    A simplified protocol for Agrobacterium-mediated transformation of ...
    Mar 23, 2023 · Step-by-step illustrated guide of Medicago transformation with SB protocol is depicted in Fig. 1. At day 7 of growth, 4 mL of Medicago liquid ...
  86. [86]
    Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation: biology and ...
    This article aims to provide a comprehensive review of the biology and the applications of Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation
  87. [87]
    A comprehensive review of in planta stable transformation strategies
    May 31, 2024 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens-mediated transformation is by far the most used method among the different in planta approaches as it is a simple and ...
  88. [88]
    Genetically engineered plants: greener than you think - PMC - NIH
    Virtually all of the transgenic plants cultivated today were made using Agrobacterium to deliver the transgenes. Why do we need genetically engineered plants?
  89. [89]
    Frontiers | Agrobacterium-Mediated Transformation of Tree Fruit Crops
    Feb 28, 2019 · Agrobacterium-mediated gene transfer is a powerful tool for delivery of transgenes although optimal conditions for efficient gene delivery vary ...
  90. [90]
    T-DNA Binary Vectors and Systems - PMC - NIH
    This binary system permitted facile manipulation of Agrobacterium and opened up the field of plant genetic engineering to numerous laboratories. In this review, ...
  91. [91]
  92. [92]
    Construction of Disarmed Ti Plasmids Transferable between ... - NIH
    To ensure transformation without tumorigenicity, Agrobacterium strains used for transformation contain a modified Ti plasmid, which lacks T-DNA (disarmed) but ...
  93. [93]
  94. [94]
    Binary vector copy number engineering improves Agrobacterium ...
    Nov 4, 2024 · Binary vectors consist of a T-DNA region, a bacterial selectable marker and an origin of replication (ORI) to enable proper replication and ...
  95. [95]
    Enhancing Agrobacterium-mediated plant transformation ... - Frontiers
    Jul 22, 2024 · For plant transformation purposes, Agrobacterium strains and vector systems have been engineered for several vital aspects. Initially, the Ti ...Introduction · Materials and methods · Results · Discussion
  96. [96]
    Agrobacterium Genome Engineering using INTEGRATE - Frontiers
    Sep 8, 2025 · We recently implemented the CRISPR RNA-guided transposase system, INTEGRATE, as an efficient tool for genetic modification in Agrobacterium.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
  97. [97]
    Historical account on gaining insights on the mechanism of crown ...
    Jun 19, 2014 · Agrobacterium was first isolated from tumors in 1897 by Fridiano Cavara in Napoli, Italy. After this bacterium was recognized to be the cause of ...
  98. [98]
    A Plant-Tumor of Bacterial Origin - Science
    A Plant-Tumor of Bacterial Origin. Erwin F. Smith and C. O. TownsendAuthors Info & Affiliations. Science. 26 Apr 1907 ... Agrobacterium fabrum Plant Infection ...
  99. [99]
    Agrobacterium: The Natural Genetic Engineer 100 Years Later
    Jun 1, 2008 · The story of how a ubiquitous soil bacterium, Agrobacterium, went from being merely another plant pathogen to a household name in plant genetic engineering.Missing: nomenclatural | Show results with:nomenclatural
  100. [100]
    Agrobacterium: nature's genetic engineer - PMC - NIH
    In 1907, two American plant pathologists, Erwin Smith and Charles Townsend reported that the agent causing the common, destructive disease of a variety of ...
  101. [101]
    [PDF] A short history of plant transformation - PeerJ
    Mar 6, 2019 · The history of plant transformation begins in the late 19th century, when fleshy outgrowths were. 11 noticed on crown roots of several ...
  102. [102]
    Characterization of integration sites and transfer DNA structures in ...
    This report provides a quantitative assessment of Agrobacterium-mediated T-DNA integration in maize with respect to insertion site features.
  103. [103]
    Agrobacterium tumefaciens: a Transformative Agent ... - ASM Journals
    Mar 9, 2023 · Agrobacterium tumefaciens incites the formation of readily visible macroscopic structures known as crown galls on plant tissues that it infects.