Integrative Perspectives on Multi-Level Mechanisms in Plant-Pathogen Interactions: From Molecular Defense to Ecological Resilience

1  Introduction

Plant-pathogen interactions represent a complex and dynamic battlefield in which plants, as sessile organisms, have evolved intricate defense systems to mitigate the continuous threat posed by a diverse range of pathogens, such as bacteria, fungi, viruses, and nematodes [1,2]. These interactions occur across multiple biological levels, from molecular signaling networks to ecological adaptations, influencing plant health and, consequently, the stability of agricultural ecosystems [3–5]. Plants rely on a sophisticated immune system that includes both constitutive defenses, such as structural barriers and antimicrobial compounds, and inducible responses triggered upon pathogen attack [6,7]. Early detection of pathogens through conserved microbial patterns initiates a cascade of molecular events, enabling plants to mount timely and effective defense responses [8]. However, pathogens have co-evolved sophisticated mechanisms to evade or suppress plant defenses, leading to a continual arms race that drives the evolutionary trajectories of both hosts and pathogens [9,10].

At the molecular level, plants use pattern recognition receptors (PRRs) to detect pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMPs), thereby triggering a basal defense response known as pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) [11,12]. In response, many pathogens deploy effector proteins that disrupt host immune responses, prompting the activation of a more potent defense mechanism known as effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [13–15]. These layered immune responses involve complex signal transduction pathways, including the activation of mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs), calcium signaling, and the production of reactive oxygen species (ROS) [9]. Hormonal signaling networks further coordinate immune responses, with salicylic acid, jasmonic acid, and ethylene playing pivotal roles in modulating resistance against various pathogen types. The intricate cross-talk between these hormonal pathways determines the specificity and intensity of the plant’s immune response, underscoring the importance of understanding these molecular mechanisms to develop effective strategies for disease management [9,16,17].

Beyond molecular and biochemical defenses, plants exhibit several physiological and structural adaptations that contribute to pathogen resistance. These include the rapid deposition of callose, reinforcement of cell walls through lignification, and initiation of localized cell death via the hypersensitive response, which serve as critical barriers to pathogen proliferation [18,19]. Secondary metabolites, such as phenolics, flavonoids, alkaloids, and phytoalexins, play a critical role in plant chemical defense by either directly suppressing pathogen proliferation or by modulating host immune signaling pathways [20–22]. Additionally, antimicrobial enzymes such as chitinases and glucanases degrade pathogen cell walls, further enhancing resistance [9,19]. These physiological responses are intricately linked to the plant’s metabolic state and environmental conditions, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of plant defense strategies that integrates both cellular and physiological perspectives [23].

The plant-associated microbiome is a critical component of plant defense, influencing immunity through complex interactions with both beneficial and pathogenic microorganisms [24]. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and mycorrhizal fungi play essential roles in enhancing host immunity by inducing systemic resistance and improving nutrient acquisition [25,26]. Advances in microbiome engineering and the development of synthetic microbial communities offer promising avenues for developing sustainable disease management strategies. Understanding the interplay between host plants and their microbiomes is particularly important in the context of changing environmental conditions, where the stability and functionality of microbial communities can significantly influence plant health and productivity [27,28].

Ecological factors, such as climate variability and human activities, complicate plant-pathogen dynamics by affecting pathogen virulence, host susceptibility, and disease distribution [29]. Rising temperatures, shifting precipitation patterns, and increased atmospheric CO2 levels affect both pathogen life cycles and the efficacy of plant defense mechanisms [30]. Co-evolutionary interactions between plants and pathogens, influenced by these environmental pressures, drive the emergence of novel virulence factors and resistance genes [31]. These evolutionary dynamics highlight the need for interdisciplinary approaches that combine genetic, ecological, and environmental factors to effectively reduce the impact of plant diseases on global food security.

In light of these considerations, this review provides a comprehensive examination of the multi-level mechanisms involved in plant-pathogen interactions, focusing on molecular recognition systems, intracellular signaling, physiological defenses, and the role of the plant microbiome. It also addresses ecological factors and environmental influences on these interactions. It further examines the ecological and environmental contexts that influence these interactions and highlights emerging strategies to enhance plant immunity through microbiome management and sustainable agricultural practices. This review integrates insights from molecular, physiological, microbiome, and ecological research, aiming to advance crop protection and sustainable farming practices.

2  Molecular Mechanisms of Plant Defense

The molecular mechanisms underlying plant defense provide a crucial framework for understanding how plants detect invading pathogens and initiate highly specialized immune responses. These mechanisms involve a sophisticated surveillance system capable of detecting both general pathogen-associated signals and highly specific virulence factors. Upon detection, plants activate an intricate network of signal transduction pathways that coordinate both localized and systemic defense responses. This multilayered defense strategy halts the progression of pathogen invasion and primes the plant for future encounters, contributing to both immediate survival and long-term resilience.

2.1 Pathogen Recognition Systems

Plants employ two primary immune recognition strategies: pattern-triggered immunity (PTI) and effector-triggered immunity (ETI) [25]. PTI, which is the first line of defense, is initiated when plant cells recognize conserved molecular patterns present on pathogens, known as Pathogen-Associated Molecular Patterns (PAMPs), via cell surface-localized Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs). These receptors are able to detect broad microbial signatures, such as bacterial flagellin and fungal chitin, and initiate an immune response that serves as the plant’s initial defense [32,33]. Key PRRs include FLS2, which recognizes bacterial flagellin; EFR, which detects elongation factor Tu (EF-Tu); and CERK1, which identifies fungal chitin fragments [34]. Upon activation, these receptors initiate a cascade of defense responses aimed at restricting pathogen growth and invasion. However, despite the robustness of PTI, many pathogens secrete specialized effector proteins that suppress these defenses, thereby facilitating successful colonization. In response to these pathogen effectors, plants activate ETI, which is a more specific and often stronger immune response triggered by the detection of pathogen-derived effector proteins. ETI typically involves a rapid, localized cell death response, known as the hypersensitive response (HR), which limits pathogen spread and reinforces plant immunity [35,36].

To counteract this suppression, plants have evolved a second layer of immunity—effector-triggered immunity (ETI)—which is mediated by intracellular nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat (NLR) proteins [33,37]. These NLRs recognize pathogen effectors either directly or indirectly, triggering a rapid and often more robust immune response compared to PTI. ETI is frequently associated with the hypersensitive response (HR), a localized form of programmed cell death at the site of infection that restricts pathogen spread [38]. The coordinated activation of PTI and ETI forms a dynamic and highly effective defense system that is essential for plant survival under pathogen pressure [39,40]. The overall signaling architecture and interaction between PTI and ETI pathways are summarized in Fig. 1, illustrating the sequential and overlapping nature of these critical immune responses.

Figure 1: Schematic diagram of plant immune responses including HR, PTI, ETI, PAMPs, PRRs, and NLR pathways (Created with app.napkin.ai)

2.2 Signal Transduction Pathways

Following pathogen recognition, plants rapidly convert extracellular signals into intracellular responses through complex signaling cascades. Mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) cascades are central to this process. They mediate the phosphorylation of key transcription factors, leading to the activation of defense-related gene expression [41,42]. These cascades play a crucial role in regulating the production of antimicrobial compounds, reinforcing physical barriers, and initiating localized defense responses [43]. Once the MAPK cascade is activated, it triggers a series of downstream signaling events, including the activation of calcium signaling, which is a critical component of plant immune responses [44]. Calcium signaling is initiated by a rapid influx of Ca2+ ions into the cytosol, which in turn activates Calcium-Dependent Protein Kinases (CDPKs) [45]. These kinases modulate gene expression, enzyme activation, and stomatal closure, all of which help limit pathogen entry points into the plant [46]. This calcium-induced signaling cascade also interacts with the production of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS), which further enhances the plant’s defense mechanisms [47].

Another critical component of the plant defense signaling network is the production of ROS, generated through the activation of NADPH oxidases [48]. ROS act as signaling molecules as well as direct antimicrobial agents. They contribute to the reinforcement of the cell wall through lignification and trigger localized programmed cell death, thereby limiting pathogen proliferation [48,49]. Collectively, these signaling events form a highly interconnected network that coordinates effective defense responses at the site of infection and systemically throughout the plant.

The efficiency of plant defense is further regulated by a complex hormonal signaling network involving salicylic acid (SA), jasmonic acid (JA), and ethylene (ET) [50]. These hormones regulate immune responses based on the lifestyle of the invading pathogen [51]. SA signaling predominantly mediates resistance against biotrophic pathogens by activating systemic acquired resistance (SAR), a long-lasting defense mechanism [52]. In contrast, the JA and ET signaling pathways are activated in response to necrotrophic pathogens and herbivorous insects, promoting the synthesis of defense-related compounds toxic to these organisms [53,54]. The cross-regulation between SA and JA/ET pathways ensures that plants mount appropriate immune responses while maintaining growth and metabolic homeostasis [50]. Together, these signaling events create a highly interconnected network that coordinates effective defense responses both locally at the site of infection and systemically throughout the plant, ensuring a robust and coordinated immune response. A detailed summary of these signaling molecules, their primary defense roles, and the types of pathogens they target is presented in Table 1, providing a comprehensive reference for understanding the hormonal coordination underlying plant immunity (Fig. 2).

Figure 2: Summary of pathogen recognition by PRRs and NLRs, signaling activation, and the initiation of PTI and ETI (Created with app.napkin.ai and BioRender.com)

3  Cellular and Physiological Responses to Pathogen Attack

In addition to molecular recognition and signaling, plants activate a range of cellular and physiological defense responses to prevent pathogen entry and limit disease progression [1]. These responses act as immediate, localized barriers and are often triggered within minutes to hours following pathogen detection [8]. Structural defenses reinforce the physical integrity of plant tissues, whereas metabolic and enzymatic responses create a hostile environment for pathogen survival. Collectively, these mechanisms constitute a robust first line of defense, operating in coordination with molecular signaling pathways to restrict pathogen proliferation and minimize tissue damage.

3.1 Structural Barriers and Cellular Responses

The reinforcement of structural barriers is a critical component of the plant’s initial defense strategy. One of the earliest cellular responses is the deposition of callose, a β-1,3-glucan polymer, at the sites of pathogen invasion [62,63]. Callose deposition strengthens the cell wall and serves as a physical barrier, blocking pathogen entry and movement through plasmodesmata [64]. Concurrently, plants initiate lignification, the deposition of lignin polymers, which further fortifies cell walls, enhancing mechanical strength and providing resistance against enzymatic degradation by pathogens [65,66]. Lignification becomes particularly important during the later stages of infection, as many pathogens attempt to breach plant tissues through enzymatic activity.

When structural defenses are insufficient to contain pathogen invasion, plants initiate a localized form of programmed cell death known as the hypersensitive response (HR) [67]. HR involves the rapid death of cells at the site of infection, effectively cutting off nutrient supply to the pathogen and limiting its spread [68]. This response is closely associated with the generation of ROS and the activation of defense-related genes that contribute to cell wall strengthening and the synthesis of antimicrobial compounds [69]. Programmed cell death (PCD) also plays a broader role in tissue development and systemic immunity by eliminating infected or damaged cells and signaling neighboring tissues to initiate defense measures [70]. The coordinated interaction between these structural and cellular defense mechanisms is visually summarized in Fig. 3.

Figure 3: Schematic representation of various modes of plant defense mechanisms (Created with app.napkin.ai)

3.2 Secondary Metabolite Production and Antimicrobial Compounds

In addition to physical barriers, plants deploy a wide range of chemical defenses, including secondary metabolites and antimicrobial enzymes [20,71]. These compounds play essential roles in directly inhibiting pathogen growth, disrupting pathogen metabolism, and modulating the plant’s internal defense signaling pathways. Phenolic compounds, such as tannins and lignans, contribute to cell wall rigidity and possess antimicrobial properties that inhibit bacterial and fungal growth [72]. Flavonoids, another diverse class of phenolic compounds, function only as antioxidants as well as antimicrobial agents, targeting a wide range of pathogens [73]. Additionally, plants synthesize phytoalexins—low molecular weight antimicrobial compounds rapidly produced in response to pathogen attack. Examples include resveratrol in grapevines and camalexin in Arabidopsis, both of which demonstrate potent antifungal and antibacterial activity [74,75].

Alkaloids, a diverse class of nitrogen-containing secondary metabolites, exhibit potent antimicrobial activity by disrupting critical pathogen cellular processes such as DNA replication and protein synthesis [76,77]. These compounds often accumulate at sites of infection, thereby contributing to localized defense responses. In addition to chemical defenses, plants produce a range of antimicrobial enzymes, such as chitinases and glucanases, that degrade the structural components of fungal and bacterial cell walls [78]. Chitinases specifically target chitin in fungal cell walls, whereas β-1,3-glucanases target glucan polymers, resulting in the structural collapse of pathogen cell walls and ultimately resulting in cell lysis [79,80]. These enzymatic defenses work synergistically with secondary metabolites to inhibit pathogen growth and limit their spread [78]. The diversity and functionality of secondary metabolites and antimicrobial enzymes are summarized in Table 2, which outlines their classes, representative compounds, and pathogen targets.

3.3 Stomatal Closure and Pathogen Entry

Upon pathogen attack, stomatal closure serves as a critical early defense response to limit pathogen entry [90]. Stomata, the pores on plant leaves, are the primary points of pathogen ingress, especially for biotrophic pathogens that require living host cells. Closure is often triggered by reactive oxygen species (ROS) and calcium signaling, which induce signaling pathways that reinforce defense responses [91]. Calcium-dependent protein kinases (CDPKs) activate additional signaling, further promoting stomatal closure to prevent the pathogen from entering the plant. This rapid response is crucial in the early stages of infection to limit pathogen spread [92].

3.4 Callose Deposition and Strengthening of Physical Barriers

In response to pathogen attack, callose deposition forms a physical barrier at the site of infection, limiting pathogen movement [93]. Callose, a β-1,3-glucan, is synthesized and deposited around plant cells, particularly in response to PAMP recognition by Pattern Recognition Receptors (PRRs) [94]. This action is a key component of the localized defense response, which also includes lignification of cell walls, making them more resistant to pathogen invasion. Together, these structural changes serve to isolate the pathogen and prevent its spread within the plant.

4  Microbiome and Plant Immunity Interactions

The plant microbiome has emerged as a critical component in modulating plant immunity, offering an additional layer of defense that complements the plant’s intrinsic molecular, cellular, and physiological responses [95]. The rhizosphere, phyllosphere, and endosphere host diverse microbial communities that significantly influence plant health, nutrient acquisition, and resistance to pathogens [96]. These microbial assemblages engage in complex chemical and molecular interactions with the host plant, enhancing immune responses and improving resilience to both biotic and abiotic stresses [97]. As our understanding of plant-microbiome interactions deepens, the potential to harness beneficial microbes as sustainable alternatives to chemical pesticides and fertilizers becomes increasingly evident, offering an environmentally friendly approach to enhance crop productivity and disease resistance.

4.1 Beneficial Microbes in Enhancing Plant Immunity

Among beneficial microbes, PGPR and mycorrhizal fungi play particularly important roles in enhancing plant immunity [98]. PGPR colonize plant roots and exert their beneficial effects through various mechanisms, including nutrient solubilization, production of growth hormones, and most notably, the activation of induced systemic resistance (ISR) [99,100]. ISR is a defense mechanism triggered by beneficial microbes that primes the plant for enhanced resistance against a wide range of pathogens without the direct involvement of pathogen recognition [101]. Unlike systemic acquired resistance (SAR), which is primarily mediated by salicylic acid, ISR is regulated mainly through jasmonic acid and ethylene signaling pathways [102,103]. This allows plants to mount more effective responses against necrotrophic pathogens and herbivorous insects.

Mycorrhizal fungi, particularly arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF), form symbiotic associations with plant roots, enhancing nutrient and water uptake [104]. In addition to their nutritional benefits, mycorrhizal fungi contribute to plant immunity by enhancing cell wall integrity, modulating hormone signaling pathways, and triggering ISR-like defense responses [105,106]. Specific microbial interactions also play a crucial role in enhancing plant resistance to particular pathogens. PGPR and mycorrhizal fungi, for instance, can directly or indirectly ISR by stimulating plant defense pathways. These microbes interact with the plant’s immune system, often priming it to respond more effectively to specific pathogen threats. Additionally, these interactions can influence the plant’s metabolic processes, leading to the production of secondary metabolites and enzymes that inhibit pathogen growth. These beneficial interactions improve the plant’s resilience to soil-borne pathogens and contribute to long-term soil health by fostering a stable and diverse microbial ecosystem. The complex interactions between plant roots and their associated microbiota, and the pathways through which these microbes enhance plant immunity, are illustrated in Fig. 4, providing a comprehensive overview of microbial contributions to plant defense.

Figure 4: Interaction between plant roots and beneficial microbiome (Created with BioRender.com)

4.2 Microbiome Engineering for Disease Resistance

Recent advances in microbiome research have paved the way for microbiome engineering approaches aimed at enhancing plant health and disease resistance. One such strategy involves the development of synthetic microbial communities (SynComs), which are carefully designed consortia of beneficial microbes selected for their synergistic interactions and ability to promote plant growth and immunity [107,108]. SynComs are engineered to deliver targeted benefits, such as improved nutrient acquisition, suppression of soil-borne pathogens, and activation of plant defense pathways. These communities can be tailored to specific crops and environmental conditions, offering a highly customizable solution for sustainable agriculture [109,110].

In addition to SynComs, the use of commercial bio-inoculants has gained significant attention as a practical strategy for enhancing plant immunity in agricultural systems. These bio-inoculants consist of beneficial microbial strains known to promote plant growth and suppress pathogens through various mechanisms, including competitive exclusion, production of antimicrobial metabolites, and induction of host defense responses [111,112]. Bio-inoculants offer an environmentally sustainable alternative to synthetic agrochemical inputs, reducing reliance on targetischemical pesticides and fertilizers while improving soil health and crop resilience. A summary of widely used commercial bio-inoculants, including their microbial compositions and pathogens they target is provided in Table 3, highlighting their practical applications in modern agricultural practices.

5  Ecological and Environmental Perspectives

Plant-pathogen interactions are significantly influenced by ecological and environmental factors, which shape the prevalence, intensity, and outcomes of plant diseases at both local and global scales [125]. Changes in environmental conditions directly impact the biology of pathogens as well as the physiological state and defense capabilities of host plants [126,127]. As ecosystems face increasing anthropogenic pressures, such as habitat fragmentation, intensive agricultural practices, and climate change, the dynamics of plant diseases become more complex and less predictable [126]. These evolving dynamics have significant implications for global food security, biodiversity conservation, and sustainable agriculture, highlighting the need for a deeper understanding of the influence of ecological and environmental factors on plant-pathogen interactions.

5.1 Impact of Climate Change on Plant-Pathogen Dynamics

Climate change is a major driver of emerging and re-emerging plant diseases, influencing both pathogen virulence and host susceptibility. Rising global temperatures accelerate pathogen life cycles, resulting in increased reproduction rates and shortened infection cycles [128]. Elevated temperatures may also impair plant immune responses by disrupting hormone signaling pathways and suppressing the production of defense-related metabolites [129]. Furthermore, changes in precipitation patterns—ranging from prolonged droughts to excessive rainfall—create favorable conditions for specific pathogens [130]. High humidity and excessive rainfall typically promote the proliferation of fungal pathogens, whereas drought conditions can predispose plants to soil-borne diseases by weakening their structural integrity and physiological defenses [131,132].

Climate change has also led to a shift in the geographic distribution of plant pathogens, facilitating their spread into new geographic regions [133,134]. Warmer temperatures and altered weather patterns enable pathogens to expand beyond their traditional habitats, leading to the emergence of diseases in regions where host plants may lack effective resistance mechanisms [135]. This geographic redistribution has been observed in several major crop systems and poses significant threats to global food production. The conceptual relationships between climate variables and disease dynamics are illustrated in Fig. 5, which provides an overview of how temperature, precipitation, and atmospheric variations influence pathogen virulence, host susceptibility, and disease spread.

Figure 5: Effects of climate change on plant-pathogen interactions (Created with BioRender.com)

5.2 Co-Evolutionary Dynamics between Plants and Pathogens

The evolutionary history of plants and their pathogens is characterized by a continual “arms race”, in which both parties evolve new strategies to outcompete one another. This dynamic is often explained through the “Red Queen Hypothesis”, which suggests that species must continuously adapt and evolve not only for reproductive success but also to survive against constantly evolving antagonists [136]. In the context of plant–pathogen interactions, plants develop new resistance (R) genes and defense mechanisms, where pathogens concurrently develop novel virulence factors and effectors to bypass these defenses [137]. This co-evolutionary struggle shapes both the genetic diversity of plant populations and the pathogenic potential of microbial species.

Several case studies highlight this ongoing battle between host plants and their pathogens. The rice-blast fungus (Magnaporthe oryzae), one of the most destructive pathogens of rice, continuously evolves new strains capable of overcoming resistance genes introduced through breeding programs [138–140]. Similarly, wheat rust diseases, particularly stem rust caused by Puccinia graminis f. sp. tritici, have resurged due to the emergence of highly virulent races such as the Ug99 lineage, which can overcome previously effective resistance genes in wheat [141,142]. These examples underscore the necessity of developing durable resistance strategies that account for the evolutionary potential of pathogens. Understanding these co-evolutionary dynamics is essential for designing breeding programs and disease management strategies that remain effective over time, even in the face of rapidly evolving pathogen populations.

6  Challenges and Future Directions

Despite significant advancements in understanding the mechanisms of plant defense, several unresolved challenges continue to limit the development of effective and sustainable disease management strategies. One of the major challenges is the incomplete integration of multi-omics approaches, including genomics, transcriptomics, proteomics, and metabolomics, which are essential for comprehensively understanding the complex regulatory networks involved in plant-pathogen interactions [143,144]. For example, recent studies integrating transcriptomic and proteomic data have identified key immune-related genes and proteins that were previously undetected when analyzed separately, revealing new targets for breeding pathogen-resistant crops [145,146]. Similarly, the integration of metabolomic data with genomic information has provided insights into the metabolic shifts that occur during pathogen attack, helping to identify novel metabolites involved in plant defense [147]. Although these technologies have provided valuable insights individually, the lack of comprehensive data integration prevents the identification of key molecular targets that could be harnessed to improve disease resistance. Incorporating systems biology approaches, such as network-based integration of multi-omics data, has been instrumental in revealing cross-talk between various molecular pathways, metabolic processes, and phenotypic responses [148]. These integrated approaches are paving the way for a more holistic understanding of plant immunity. Advanced computational tools and systems biology frameworks are urgently needed to combine these datasets and reveal critical cross-talk among molecular pathways, metabolic processes, and phenotypic responses.

Translating laboratory discoveries into practical field-level solutions remains another significant challenge [149]. Most experimental studies are conducted under controlled conditions that fail to adequately capture the complexity of agricultural ecosystems, where plants are simultaneously exposed to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses [150,151]. Consequently, resistance traits and bio-inoculant applications that show promise in laboratory settings often yield inconsistent results under variable field conditions. Bridging this gap requires greater emphasis on long-term field validation, the development of crop varieties suited to diverse agroecological zones, and the incorporation of real-world environmental variables into experimental designs [152].

Overcoming these challenges also requires interdisciplinary collaboration and the establishment of supportive policy frameworks. Integrating expertise from molecular biology, plant breeding, microbiome science, ecology, and climate science will be essential to develop resilient cropping systems. Policy initiatives should promote collaborative research, incentivize the adoption of sustainable agricultural technologies, and facilitate the responsible deployment of biotechnological innovations. Furthermore, investment in region-specific solutions and data-sharing platforms will enhance the scalability and impact of research efforts, ultimately contributing to improved global food security and agricultural sustainability.

7  Conclusions

Understanding plant–pathogen interactions requires a multidimensional perspective that incorporates molecular recognition systems, cellular defense mechanisms, microbiome contributions, and broader ecological and environmental contexts. Plants employ highly specialized immune strategies, including PTI and ETI, supported by complex intracellular signaling networks and structural barriers such as callose deposition and lignification. Secondary metabolites and antimicrobial enzymes further reinforce plant immunity by directly inhibiting pathogen growth and enhancing resistance responses.

In addition to these intrinsic mechanisms, beneficial interactions with microbial communities play a pivotal role in strengthening plant immunity. PGPR and mycorrhizal fungi contribute to ISR and improve plant resilience under various environmental stresses. At the ecosystem level, climate change continues to reshape plant–pathogen dynamics, leading to the emergence of new diseases and challenging existing resistance strategies. The ongoing evolutionary arms race between plants and pathogens highlights the need for continuous innovation in crop protection.

A holistic approach integrating advances in molecular research, microbial biotechnology, ecological understanding, and climate resilience is critical for the development of sustainable disease management strategies. Key findings from this review suggest that plant immunity is deeply interconnected with both intrinsic defense mechanisms and beneficial microbial interactions. Future research should focus on integrating multi-omics technologies to unlock novel molecular targets for resistance, with a particular emphasis on validating these findings under field conditions. Additionally, there is a growing need to explore microbiome engineering as a tool for enhancing plant defenses. The collaboration between bioinformatics and field-based research will be essential for translating lab-based discoveries into real-world agricultural applications. Policy support and international collaboration will be critical to ensure that these scientific advances translate into practical solutions that safeguard agricultural productivity and contribute to long-term global food security.

Acknowledgement: Not applicable.

Funding Statement: The authors received no specific funding for this study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, writing—original draft preparation, resources, software, validation, visualization, Adnan Amin and Wajid Zaman; writing—review and editing, supervision, Wajid Zaman. All authors reviewed the results and approved the final version of the manuscript.

Availability of Data and Materials: Data sharing not applicable to this article as no datasets were generated or analyzed during the current study.

Ethics Approval: Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest to report regarding the present study.

References

1. Kaur S, Samota M, Choudhary M, Choudhary M, Pandey A, Sharma A, et al. How do plants defend themselves against pathogens-Biochemical mechanisms and genetic interventions. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2022;28:485–504. doi:10.1007/s12298-022-01146-y. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

2. Zhang R, Zheng F, Wei S, Zhang S, Li G, Cao P, et al. Evolution of disease defense genes and their regulators in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20:335. doi:10.3390/ijms20020335. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

3. Tahat M, Alananbeh K, Othman Y, Leskovar D. Soil health and sustainable agriculture. Sustainability. 2020;12(12):4859. doi:10.3390/su12124859. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

4. Ruparelia J, Rabari A, Jha CK, Sayyed RZ. Bacterial secondary metabolites (B-SMsempowering agriculture against fungal disease challenges. In: Mathur P, Roy S, editors. Plant microbiome and biological control: emerging trends and applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2025. p. 273–87. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75845-4_12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

5. Chaithra M, Nishmitha K, Patel PS, Mitra D, Gangaraj R, Sayyed RZ. Fungal bio-stimulants: cutting-edge bioinoculants for sustainable agriculture. In: Mathur P, Roy S, editors. Plant microbiome and biological control: emerging trends and applications. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2025. p. 289–307. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75845-4_13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

6. Kajrolkar A. Plant immune system: understanding pathogen recognition and defense mechanisms. Prem J Sci. 2024;1000(61):61. [Google Scholar]

7. Dodds P, Chen J, Outram M. Pathogen perception and signalling in plant immunity. Plant Cell. 2024;36(5):1465–81. doi:10.1093/plcell/koae020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

8. Ali S, Tyagi A, Mir Z. Plant immunity: at the crossroads of pathogen perception and defense response. Plants. 2024;13(11):1434. doi:10.3390/plants13111434. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

9. Muthamilarasan M, Prasad M. Plant innate immunity: an updated insight into defense mechanism. J Biosci. 2013;38:433–49. doi:10.1007/s12038-013-9302-2. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

10. Andersen E, Ali S, Byamukama E, Yen Y, Nepal M. Disease resistance mechanisms in plants. Genes. 2018;9(7):339. doi:10.3390/genes9070339. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

11. Sagar A, Rai S, Sharma S, Perveen K, Bukhari NA, Sayyed RZ, et al. Molecular characterization reveals biodiversity and biopotential of rhizobacterial isolates of Bacillus spp. Microb Ecol. 2024;87(1):83. doi:10.1007/s00248-024-02397-w. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

12. Aktar SN, Shah MH, Mohanty B, Pramanik K, Hosen MS, Ddoza RMB, et al. Beneficial microbes in plant health, immunity and resistance. Plant Microbiome Biol Control. 2025;20:1–17. doi:10.1007/978-3-031-75845-4_1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

13. Bentham A, De La Concepcion JC, Mukhi N, Zdrzałek R, Draeger M, Gorenkin D, et al. A molecular roadmap to the plant immune system. J Biol Chem. 2020;295:14916–35. doi:10.1074/jbc.rev120.010852. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

14. Margets A, Rima S, Helm M, Carter M. Molecular mechanism & structure—zooming in on plant immunity. Mol Plant—Microbe Interact. 2021;34(12):1346–9. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

15. De Lorenzo G, Cervone F. Plant immunity by damage-associated molecular patterns (DAMPs). Essays Biochem. 2022;66(5):459–69. doi:10.1042/ebc20210087. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

16. Roychowdhury R, Mishra S, Anand G, Dalal D, Gupta R, Kumar A, et al. Decoding the molecular mechanism underlying salicylic acid (SA)-mediated plant immunity: an integrated overview from its biosynthesis to the mode of action. Physiol Plant. 2024;176(3):e14399. doi:10.1111/ppl.14399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

17. Miller R, Alves G, Van Sluys M. Plant immunity: unravelling the complexity of plant responses to biotic stresses. Ann Bot. 2017;119:681. doi:10.1093/aob/mcw284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

18. Underwood W. The plant cell wall: a dynamic barrier against pathogen invasion. Front Plant Sci. 2012;3:85. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

19. Saur I, Hückelhoven R. Recognition and defence of plant-infecting fungal pathogens. J Plant Physiol. 2020;256:153324. doi:10.1016/j.jplph.2020.153324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

20. Upadhyay R, Saini R, Shukla P, Tiwari K. Role of secondary metabolites in plant defense mechanisms: a molecular and biotechnological insights. Phytochem Rev. 2025;24(1):953–83. doi:10.1007/s11101-024-09976-2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

21. Akbar MU, Aqeel M, Shah MS, Jeelani G, Iqbal N, Latif A, et al. Molecular regulation of antioxidants and secondary metabolites act in conjunction to defend plants against pathogenic infection. S Afr J Bot. 2023;161:247–57. doi:10.1016/j.sajb.2023.08.028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

22. Naz R, Khushhal S, Asif T, Mubeen S, Saranraj P, Sayyed RZ. Inhibition of bacterial and fungal phytopathogens through volatile organic compounds produced by Pseudomonas sp. In: Sayyed RZ, Uarrota VG, editors. Secondary metabolites and volatiles of PGPR in plant-growth promotion. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2022. p. 95–118. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-07559-9_6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

23. Singh AK, Dhanapal S, Yadav BS. The dynamic responses of plant physiology and metabolism during environmental stress progression. Mol Biol Rep. 2020;47(2):1459–70. doi:10.1007/s11033-019-05198-4. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

24. Nishad R, Ahmed T, Rahman V, Kareem A. Modulation of plant defense system in response to microbial interactions. Front Microbiol. 2020;11:1298. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2020.01298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

25. Teixeira P, Colaianni N, Fitzpatrick C, Dangl J. Beyond pathogens: microbiota interactions with the plant immune system. Curr Opin Microbiol. 2019;49:7–17. doi:10.1016/j.mib.2019.08.003. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

26. Kumari R, Pandey E, Bushra S, Faizan S, Pandey S. Plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) induced protection: a plant immunity perspective. Physiol Plant. 2024;176(5):e14495. doi:10.1111/ppl.14495. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

27. Yu K, Pieterse C, Bakker P, Berendsen R. Beneficial microbes going underground of root immunity. Plant Cell Environ. 2019;42:2860–70. doi:10.1111/pce.13632. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

28. Ali S, Tyagi A, Bae H. Plant microbiome: an ocean of possibilities for improving disease resistance in plants. Microorganisms. 2023;11(2):392. doi:10.3390/microorganisms11020392. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

29. Waheed A, Haxim Y, Islam W, Ahmad M, Muhammad M, Alqahtani F, et al. Climate change reshaping plant-fungal interaction. Environ Res. 2023;238:117282. doi:10.1016/j.envres.2023.117282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

30. Tack A, Dicke M. Plant pathogens structure arthropod communities across multiple spatial and temporal scales. Funct Ecol. 2013;27:633–45. doi:10.1111/1365-2435.12087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

31. Agler M, Ruhe J, Kroll S, Morhenn C, Kim S-T, Weigel D, et al. Microbial Hub taxa link host and abiotic factors to plant microbiome variation. PLoS Biol. 2016;14(1):e1002352. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002352. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

32. Patel S, Sayyed RZ, Saraf M. Bacterial determinants and plant defense induction: their role as biocontrol agents in sustainable agriculture. In: Hakeem K, Akhtar M, editors. Plant, soil and microbes: volume 2: mechanisms and molecular interactions. Cham, Switzerland: Springer; 2016. p. 187–204. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-29573-2_9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

33. Qi T, Seong K, Thomazella D, Kim J, Pham J, Seo E, et al. NRG1 functions downstream of EDS1 to regulate TIR-NLR-mediated plant immunity in Nicotiana benthamiana. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2018;115(46):E10979–87. doi:10.1073/pnas.1814856115. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

34. Cesari S. Multiple strategies for pathogen perception by plant immune receptors. New Phytol. 2018;219(1):17–24. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

35. Saijo Y, Loo E, Yasuda S. Pattern recognition receptors and signaling in plant-microbe interactions. Plant J—Cell Mol Biol. 2018;93(4):592–613. doi:10.1111/tpj.13808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

36. Wang G, Roux B, Feng F, Guy E, Li L, Li N, et al. The decoy substrate of a pathogen effector and a pseudokinase specify pathogen-induced modified-self recognition and immunity in plants. Cell Host Microbe. 2015;18(3):285–95. doi:10.1016/j.chom.2015.08.004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

37. Wang X, Xu Y, Fan H, Cui N, Meng X, He J, et al. Research progress of plant nucleotide-binding leucine-rich repeat protein. Horticulturae. 2023;9(1):122. doi:10.3390/horticulturae9010122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

38. Jubic L, Saile S, Furzer O, Kasmi FE, Dangl J. Help wanted: helper NLRs and plant immune responses. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2019;50:82–94. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2019.03.013. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

39. Nguyen Q-M, Iswanto A, Son G, Kim S. Recent advances in effector-triggered immunity in plants: new pieces in the puzzle create a different paradigm. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(9):4709. doi:10.3390/ijms22094709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

40. Yuan M, Ngou BPM, Ding P, Xin X-F. PTI-ETI crosstalk: an integrative view of plant immunity. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 2021;62:102030. doi:10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

41. Pastor V, Cervero R, Gamir J. The simultaneous perception of self- and non-self-danger signals potentiates plant innate immunity responses. Planta. 2022;256(1):10. doi:10.1007/s00425-022-03918-y. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

42. Wang W, Feng B, Zhou J-M, Tang D. Plant immune signaling: advancing on two frontiers. J Integr Plant Biol. 2020;62(1):2–24. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

43. Li C, Wang K, Zou Y, Lei C, Chen Z, Zheng Y. Extracellular self-DNA induced a PTI-related local defence against Rhizopus rot in postharvest peach fruit. Postharvest Biol Technol. 2023;200:112306. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2023.112306; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

44. Meng X, Zhang S. MAPK cascades in plant disease resistance signaling. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2013;51:245–66. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-082712-102314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

45. Singh A, Sushma S, Biswas DK. Calcium dependent protein kinase, a versatile player in plant stress management and development. Crit Rev Plant Sci. 2017;36(5–6):336–52. doi:10.1080/07352689.2018.1428438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

46. Atif RM, Shahid L, Waqas M, Ali B, Rashid MAR, Azeem F, et al. Insights on calcium-dependent protein kinases (CPKs) signaling for abiotic stress tolerance in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(21):5298. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

47. Liu Z, Liu H, Tan B, Wang X, Chong P. Physiological and transcriptomic analyses revealed the alleviating effects of exogenous Ca2+ and NO compound treatment on high salt stress in Reaumuria soongorica. BMC Genom. 2025;26(1):179. doi:10.1186/s12864-025-11355-w. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

48. Ali M, Cheng Z, Ahmad H, Hayat S. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) as defenses against a broad range of plant fungal infections and case study on ROS employed by crops against Verticillium dahliae wilts. J Plant Interact. 2018;13:353–63. doi:10.1080/17429145.2018.1484188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

49. O’Brien J, O’Brien J, Daudi A, Daudi A, Butt V, Bolwell G. Reactive oxygen species and their role in plant defence and cell wall metabolism. Planta. 2012;236:765–79. [Google Scholar]

50. Li N-Y, Han X, Feng D, Yuan D, Huang L-J. Signaling crosstalk between salicylic acid and Ethylene/Jasmonate in plant defense: do we understand what they are whispering? Int J Mol Sci. 2019;20(3):671. doi:10.3390/ijms20030671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

51. Mo Y, Heo Y, Choi HW, Hyong O, Choi W. Salicylic acid as a safe plant protector and growth regulator. Plant Pathol J. 2020;36:1–10. doi:10.5423/ppj.rw.12.2019.0295. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

52. Mur L, Prats E, Pierre S, Hall M, Hebelstrup K. Integrating nitric oxide into salicylic acid and jasmonic acid/ethylene plant defense pathways. Front Plant Sci. 2013;4. doi:10.3389/fpls.2013.00215. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

53. Reymond P, Farmer E. Jasmonate and salicylate as global signals for defense gene expression. Curr Opin Plant Biol. 1998;1(5):404–11. doi:10.1016/s1369-5266(98)80264-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

54. Robert-Seilaniantz A, Grant M, Jones J. Hormone crosstalk in plant disease and defense: more than just jasmonate-salicylate antagonism. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 2011;49:317–43. doi:10.1146/annurev-phyto-073009-114447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

55. Huang Z, Xue Z, Zhao X, Wu C, Sun Y, Kou X. Transcription factors, potential regulatory targets in fruit defense responses to pathogens. Postharvest Biol Technol. 2023;206:112589. doi:10.1016/j.postharvbio.2023.112589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

56. Ma N, Sun P, Li Z-Y, Zhang F-J, Wang X-F, You C-X, et al. Plant disease resistance outputs regulated by AP2/ERF transcription factor family. Stress Biol. 2024;4(1):2. doi:10.1007/s44154-023-00140-y. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

57. Dey N, Roy UK, Aditya M, Bhattacharjee S. Defensive strategies of ROS in programmed cell death associated with hypertensive response in plant pathogenesis. Ann Syst Biol. 2020;3(1):1–9. doi:10.17352/asb.000004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

58. Tripathi D, Raikhy G, Kumar D. Chemical elicitors of systemic acquired resistance—salicylic acid and its functional analogs. Curr Plant Biol. 2019;17:48–59. doi:10.1016/j.cpb.2019.03.002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

59. Li C, Xu M, Cai X, Han Z, Si J, Chen D. Jasmonate signaling pathway modulates plant defense, growth, and their trade-offs. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(7):3945. doi:10.3390/ijms23073945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

60. Van Wees SCM, Luijendijk M, Smoorenburg I, Van Loon LC, Pieterse CMJ. Rhizobacteria-mediated induced systemic resistance (ISR) in Arabidopsis is not associated with a direct effect on expression of known defense-related genes but stimulates the expression of the jasmonate-inducible gene Atvsp upon challenge. Plant Mol Biol. 1999;41:537–49. doi:10.1104/pp.125.2.652. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

61. Yang Y-X, Ahammed G, Wu C, Fan S-Y, Zhou Y-H. Crosstalk among jasmonate, salicylate and ethylene signaling pathways in plant disease and immune responses. Curr Protein Pept Sci. 2015;16(5):450–61. doi:10.2174/1389203716666150330141638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

62. Spiteller D. Plant def strategies. In: Encyclopedia of ecology. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier; 2008. p. 2798–811. [Google Scholar]

63. Mitchell C, Brennan R, Graham J, Karley A. Plant defense against herbivorous pests: exploiting resistance and tolerance traits for sustainable crop protection. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1132. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

64. Du B, Haensch R, Alfarraj S, Rennenberg H. Strategies of plants to overcome abiotic and biotic stresses. Biol Rev. 2024;99(4):1524–36. doi:10.1111/brv.13079; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

65. Buanafina MMDEO, Morris P. The impact of cell wall feruloylation on plant growth, responses to environmental stress, plant pathogens and cell wall degradability. Agronomy. 2022;12(8):1847. doi:10.3390/agronomy12081847; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

66. Riseh RS, Fathi F, Lagzian A, Vatankhah M, Kennedy JF. Modifying lignin: a promising strategy for plant disease control. Int J Biol Macromol. 2024;271:132696. doi:10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2024.132696; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

67. Morel J-B, Dangl JL. The hypersensitive response and the induction of cell death in plants. Cell Death Differ. 1997;4(8):671–83. doi:10.1038/sj.cdd.4400309; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

68. Fatima U, Senthil-Kumar M. Plant and pathogen nutrient acquisition strategies. Front Plant Sci. 2015;6:750; [Google Scholar]

69. Wan J, He M, Hou Q, Zou L, Yang Y, Wei Y, et al. Cell wall associated immunity in plants. Stress Biol. 2021;1(1):3. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

70. Liu J, Hong M, Li Y, Chen D, Wu Y, Hu Y. Programmed cell death tunes tumor immunity. Front Immunol. 2022;13:847345. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2022.847345. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

71. Ryan C. Protease inhibitors in plants: genes for improving defenses against insects and pathogens. Annu Rev Phytopathol. 1990;28:425–49. doi:10.1146/annurev.py.28.090190.002233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

72. Ecevit K, Barros AA, Silva JM, Reis RL. Preventing microbial infections with natural phenolic compounds. Future Pharmacol. 2022;2(4):460–98. doi:10.3390/futurepharmacol2040030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

73. Górniak I, Bartoszewski R, Króliczewski J. Comprehensive review of antimicrobial activities of plant flavonoids. Phytochem Rev. 2019;18:241–72. doi:10.1007/s11101-018-9591-z. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

74. Dev M, Dev V, Singh KP, Pant P, Rawat S. Role of phytoalexins in plant disease resistance. In: Kumar R, de Oliveira M, de Aguiar Andrade E, Suyal D, Soni R, editors. Biorationals and biopesticides: pest management. Berlin, Germany: De Gruyter; 2024. [Google Scholar]

75. Tiku AR. Antimicrobial compounds (phytoanticipins and phytoalexins) and their role in plant defense. Co-Evol Second Metab. 2020;6:845–68. doi:10.1007/978-3-319-96397-6_63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

76. Thawabteh A, Ghanem AW, AbuMadi S, Thaher D, Jaghama W, Karaman R, et al. Antibacterial activity and antifungal activity of monomeric alkaloids. Toxins. 2024;16(11):489. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

77. Thawabteh A, Juma S, Bader M, Karaman D, Scrano L, Bufo S, et al. The biological activity of natural alkaloids against herbivores, cancerous cells and pathogens. Toxins. 2019;11(11):656. doi:10.3390/toxins16110489; [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

78. Prasannath K. Plant defense-related enzymes against pathogens: a review. J Agric Sci. 2017;11(1):38. doi:10.4038/agrieast.v11i1.33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

79. Adams DJ. Fungal cell wall chitinases and glucanases. Microbiology. 2004;150(7):2029–35. doi:10.1099/mic.0.26980-0. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

80. Shree A, Pal S, Verma PK. Structural diversification of fungal cell wall in response to the stress signaling and remodeling during fungal pathogenesis. Physiol Mol Biol Plants. 2024;30(5):733–47. doi:10.1007/s12298-024-01453-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

81. Paiva P, Gomes F, Napoleão T, Correia M, Coelho L. Antimicrobial activity of secondary metabolites and lectins from plants. Curr Res Technol Educ Top Appl Microbiol Microb Biotechnol. 2010;1(2):396–406. [Google Scholar]

82. Załuski D, Cieśla Ł, Janeczko Z. The structure-activity relationships of plant secondary metabolites with antimicrobial, free radical scavenging and inhibitory activity toward selected enzymes. Stud Nat Prod Chem. 2015;45:217–49. doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63473-3.00007-1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

83. Adaszyńska M, Swarcewicz M. Antimicrobial properties of selected secondary plant metabolites and their application in medicine. Med Biol Sci. 2014;27:5–12. [Google Scholar]

84. Shin S, Lee Y, Moon S, Koo IH, Hong H, Shin E, et al. Identification of secondary metabolites with antioxidant and antimicrobial activities from Artemisia iwayomogi and Chrysanthemum zawadskii. J Korean Soc Appl Biol Chem. 2010;53:716–23. [Google Scholar]

85. Maran S, Yeo W, Lim S, Lai K. Plant secondary metabolites for tackling antimicrobial resistance: a pharmacological perspective. In: Kumar V, Shriram V, Paul A, editors. Antimicrobial resistance. Singapore: Cham; 2022. p. 153–73. doi: 10.1007/978-981-16-3120-7_6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

86. Vyniarska A. Secondary plant metabolites as an alternative to synthetic antimicrobial substances. Sci Messenger LNU Vet Med Biotechnol. 2024;26(116):236–41. doi:10.32718/nvlvet11634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

87. Sukrasno S. Plant secondary metabolites for antifusarium and antiphytophthora. In: Askun T, editor. Fusarium: plant diseases, pathogen diversity, genetic diversity, resistance and molecular markers. London, UK: IntechOpen; 2017. [Google Scholar]

88. Piasecka A, Jedrzejczak-Rey N, Bednarek P. Secondary metabolites in plant innate immunity: conserved function of divergent chemicals. New Phytol. 2015;206(3):948–64. doi:10.1111/nph.13325. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

89. Kothari V, Shah A, Gupta S, Punjabi A. Ranka A. Reveal Antimicrob Potential Plants. 2010;3(1):1–20. [Google Scholar]

90. Meddya S, Meshram S, Sarkar D, Rakesh S, Datta R, Singh S, et al. Plant stomata: an unrealized possibility in plant defense against invading pathogens and stress tolerance. Plants. 2023;12(19):3380. doi:10.3390/plants12193380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

91. Liu H, Song S, Zhang H, Li Y, Niu L, Zhang J, et al. Signaling transduction of ABA, ROS, and Ca2+ in plant stomatal closure in response to drought. Int J Mol Sci. 2022;23(23):14824. doi:10.3390/ijms232314824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

92. Gao X, Cox KLJr, He P. Functions of calcium-dependent protein kinases in plant innate immunity. Plants. 2014;3(1):160–76. doi:10.3390/plants3010160. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

93. Wang Y, Li X, Fan B, Zhu C, Chen Z. Regulation and function of defense-related callose deposition in plants. Int J Mol Sci. 2021;22(5):2393. doi:10.3390/ijms22052393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

94. Chen J, Xu X, Liu W, Feng Z, Chen Q, Zhou Y, et al. Plasmodesmata function and callose deposition in plant disease defense. Plants. 2024;13(16):2242. doi:10.3390/plants13162242. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

95. Doughari J. An overview of plant immunity. J Plant Pathol Microbiol. 2015;6(11):10–4172. [Google Scholar]

96. Sun A, Jiao X-Y, Chen Q, Wu A-L, Zheng Y, Lin Y-X, et al. Microbial communities in crop phyllosphere and root endosphere are more resistant than soil microbiota to fertilization. Soil Biol Biochem. 2021;153:108113. doi:10.1016/j.soilbio.2020.108113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

97. Orozco-Mosqueda M, Rocha-Granados M, Glick B, Santoyo G. Microbiome engineering to improve biocontrol and plant growth-promoting mechanisms. Microbiol Res. 2018;208:25–31. doi:10.1016/j.micres.2018.01.005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

98. Nadeem SM, Ahmad M, Zahir ZA, Javaid A, Ashraf M. The role of mycorrhizae and plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) in improving crop productivity under stressful environments. Biotechnol Adv. 2014;32(2):429–48. doi:10.1016/j.biotechadv.2013.12.005. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

99. Ziane SO, Talibi ZEA, Koraichi I, Douira A, Amir S, Meddich A, et al. Synergistic effects of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi associated to plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria in suppression of soil-borne Fusarium wilt of date palm. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2023;51:102753. doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2023.102753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

100. Dere S. Mitigating the adverse effects of salt stress on pepper plants through arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) and beneficial bacterial (PGPR) inoculation. Horticulturae. 2024;10(11):1150. doi:10.3390/horticulturae10111150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

101. Heil M, Bostock R. Induced systemic resistance (ISR) against pathogens in the context of induced plant defences. Ann Bot. 2002;89(5):503–12. doi:10.1093/aob/mcf076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

102. Song S, Liu B, Song J, Pang S, Song T, Gao S, et al. A molecular framework for signaling crosstalk between jasmonate and ethylene in anthocyanin biosynthesis, trichome development, and defenses against insect herbivores in Arabidopsis. J Integr Plant Biol. 2022;64(9):1770–88. doi:10.1111/jipb.13319. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

103. Song S, Huang H, Gao H, Wang J, Wu D, Liu X, et al. Interaction between MYC2 and ETHYLENE INSENSITIVE3 modulates antagonism between jasmonate and ethylene signaling in Arabidopsis. Plant Cell. 2014;26:263–79. doi:10.1105/tpc.113.120394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

104. Khaliq A, Perveen S, Alamer KH, Zia Ul Haq M, Rafique Z, Alsudays IM, et al. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi symbiosis to enhance plant-soil interaction. Sustainability. 2022;14(13):7840. doi:10.3390/su14137840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

105. Wang H, Hao Z, Zhang X, Xie W, Chen B. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi induced plant resistance against fusarium wilt in jasmonate biosynthesis defective mutant and wild type of tomato. J Fungi. 2022;8(5):50422. doi:10.3390/jof8050422. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

106. Dowarah B, Gill S, Agarwala N. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in conferring tolerance to biotic stresses in plants. J Plant Growth Regul. 2021;41:1429–44. doi:10.1007/s00344-021-10392-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

107. Jing J, Garbeva P, Raaijmakers J, Medema M. Strategies for tailoring functional microbial synthetic communities. ISME J. 2024;18(1):wrae049. doi:10.1093/ismejo/wrae049. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

108. Coker J, Zhalnina K, Marotz C, Thiruppathy D, Tjuanta M, D’Elia G, et al. A reproducible and tunable synthetic soil microbial community provides new insights into microbial ecology. mSystems. 2022;7(6):e00951–22. doi:10.1101/2022.05.19.492707. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

109. Sai N, Devi A, Balachandar D. Synthetic microbial community (SynCom) for sustainable agriculture. Indian J Plant Genet Resour. 2022;35(3):351–4. [Google Scholar]

110. Shayanthan A, Ordoñez P, Oresnik I. The role of synthetic microbial communities (SynCom) in sustainable agriculture. Front Agron. 2022;4:896307. doi:10.3389/fagro.2022.896307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

111. Deng Z, Wang J, He Y, Tu Z, Tian F, Li H, et al. Biochar-based Bacillus subtilis inoculant for enhancing plants disease prevention: microbiota response and root exudates regulation. Biochar. 2023;5:1–16. doi:10.1007/s42773-023-00284-0. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

112. Díaz-Urbano M, Goicoechea N, Velasco P, Poveda J. Development of agricultural bio-inoculants based on mycorrhizal fungi and endophytic filamentous fungi: co-inoculants for improve plant-physiological responses in sustainable agriculture. Biol Control. 2023;182:105223. doi:10.1016/j.biocontrol.2023.105223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

113. Ramírez-Rodríguez G, Sasso D, Carmona F, Miguel-Rojas C, Pérez-De-Luque A, Masciocchi N, et al. Engineering biomimetic calcium phosphate nanoparticles: a green synthesis of slow-release multinutrient (NPK) nanofertilizers. ACS Appl Bio Mater. 2020;3(3):1344–53. doi:10.1021/acsabm.9b00937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

114. Ammar E, Aioub A, Elesawy A, Karkour A, Mouhamed M, Amer A, et al. Algae as bio-fertilizers: between current situation and future prospective. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2022;29:3083–96. doi:10.1016/j.sjbs.2022.03.020. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

115. Sruthilaxmi CB, Babu S. Microbial bio-inoculants in Indian agriculture: ecological perspectives for a more optimized use. Agric Ecosyst Environ. 2017;242:23–5. doi:10.1016/j.agee.2017.03.019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

116. Suman A, Govindasamy V, Ramakrishnan B, Aswini K, SaiPrasad J, Sharma P, et al. Microbial community and function-based synthetic bioinoculants: a perspective for sustainable agriculture. Front Microbiol. 2022;12:805498. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2021.805498. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

117. Aydi Ben Abdallah R, Hayfa J-K, Hajer R, Daami-Remadi M. Effect of indigenous bio-inoculants and commercial biological inputs on soil microbial population, soil health dynamics and pepper (Capsicum annum L.) production. Arch Agron Soil Sci. 2023;69(15):3484–501. doi:10.1080/03650340.2023.2246394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

118. Adeleke BS, Fadiji AE, Ayilara MS, Igiehon ON, Nwachukwu BC, Babalola OO. Strategies to enhance the use of endophytes as bioinoculants in agriculture. Horticulturae. 2022;8(6):498. doi:10.3390/horticulturae8060498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

119. Samantaray A, Chattaraj S, Mitra D, Ganguly A, Kumar R, Gaur A, et al. Advances in microbial based bio-inoculum for amelioration of soil health and sustainable crop production. Curr Res Microb Sci. 2024;7:100251. doi:10.1016/j.crmicr.2024.100251. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

120. Patil HJ, Solanki MK. Microbial inoculant: modern era of fertilizers and pesticides. In: Singh DP, Singh HB, Prabha R, editors. Microbial inoculants in sustainable agricultural productivity. New Delhi, India: Springer; 2016. p. 319–43. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-2647-5_19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

121. Rakshit A, Meena VS, Fraceto LF, Parihar M, Benavides-Mendonza A, Singh HB. Bio-inoculants in horticultural crops: advances in bio-inoculant, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA, USA: Elsevier; 2024. [Google Scholar]

122. dos Reis GA, Martínez-Burgos WJ, Pozzan R, Pastrana Puche Y, Ocán-Torres D, de Queiroz Fonseca Mota P, et al. Comprehensive review of microbial inoculants: agricultural applications, technology trends in patents, and regulatory frameworks. Sustainability. 2024;16(19):8720. doi:10.3390/su16198720. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

123. Kumar D, Kumar R, Sakshi, Deepshikha, Kumar A. Commercialization and market perspectives of biofertilizers through advanced approaches. In: Kaur S, Dwibedi V, Sahu PK, editors. Metabolomics, proteomics and gene editing approaches in biofertilizer industry: volume II. Singapore: Springer Nature Singapore; 2024. p. 339–57. doi: 10.1007/978-981-97-2910-4_17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

124. Ali A, Ölmez F, Zeshan M, Mubeen M, Iftikhar Y, Sajid A, et al. Yeast-based solutions in controlling plant pathogens. Biocatal Agric Biotechnol. 2024;58:103199. doi:10.1016/j.bcab.2024.103199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

125. Sharma R, Verma S. Environment-pathogen interaction in plant diseases. Agric Rev. 2019;40(3):192–9. [Google Scholar]

126. Kumar D, Mukhopadhyay R. Climate change and plant pathogens: understanding dynamics, risks and mitigation strategies. Plant Pathol. 2025;74(1):59–68. [Google Scholar]

127. Lahlali R, Mohammed T, Laasli S-E, Gachara G, Ezzouggari R, Belabess Z, et al. Effects of climate change on plant pathogens and host-pathogen interactions. Crop Environ. 2024;3(3):159–70. doi:10.1016/j.crope.2024.05.003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

128. Polgreen PM, Polgreen EL. Emerging and re-emerging pathogens and diseases, and health consequences of a changing climate. Infect Dis. 2016;11:40–8.e2. doi:10.1016/b978-0-7020-6285-8.00004-6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

129. Mir ZA, Ali S, Manzoor S, Sharma D, Sharma D, Tyagi A, et al. Plant defense hormones: thermoregulation and their role in plant adaptive immunity. J Plant Growth Regul. 2025;58:1–18. doi:10.1007/s00344-024-11620-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

130. Levy K, Woster AP, Goldstein RS, Carlton EJ. Untangling the impacts of climate change on waterborne diseases: a systematic review of relationships between diarrheal diseases and temperature, rainfall, flooding, and drought. Environ Sci Technol. 2016;50(10):4905–22. doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b06186. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

131. Meisner A, De Boer W. Strategies to maintain natural biocontrol of soil-borne crop diseases during severe drought and rainfall events. Front Microbiol. 2018;9:2279. doi:10.3389/fmicb.2018.02279. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

132. Sharma M, Ghosh R. Heat and soil moisture stress differentially impact chickpea plant infection with fungal pathogens. In: Senthil-Kumar M, editor. Plant tolerance to individual and concurrent stresses. New Delhi, India: Springer; 2017. p. 47–57. doi:10.1007/978-81-322-3706-8_4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

133. Chaloner T, Gurr S, Bebber D. Plant pathogen infection risk tracks global crop yields under climate change. Nat Clim Change. 2020;11:710–5. doi:10.1101/2020.04.28.066233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

134. Shaw M, Osborne T. Geographic distribution of plant pathogens in response to climate change. Plant Pathol. 2011;60:31–43. doi:10.1111/j.1365-3059.2010.02407.x. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

135. Singh B, Delgado-Baquerizo M, Egidi E, Guirado E, Leach J, Liu H, et al. Climate change impacts on plant pathogens, food security and paths forward. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21(10):640–56. doi:10.1038/s41579-023-00900-7. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

136. Wissemann V. HybHyp—hybridizing the host: the long reach of parasite genes. A new hypothesis to explain host-parasite interrelationships in plant hybrid complexes. Theory Biosci. 2010;129:255–8. doi:10.1007/s12064-010-0102-z. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

137. Nejat N, Rookes J, Mantri NL, Cahill DM. Plant-pathogen interactions: toward development of next-generation disease-resistant plants. Crit Rev Biotechnol. 2017;37(2):229–37. doi:10.3109/07388551.2015.1134437. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

138. Sharma TR, Rai AK, Gupta SK, Vijayan J, Devanna B, Ray S. Rice blast management through host-plant resistance: retrospect and prospects. Agric Res. 2012;1:37–52. doi:10.1007/s40003-011-0003-5. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

139. Mmbando G. The link between changing in host carbon allocation and resistance to Magnaporthe oryzae: a possible tactic for mitigating the rice blast fungus. Plant Signal Behav. 2024;19(1):2326870. doi:10.1080/15592324.2024.2326870. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

140. Hu J, Liu M, Zhang A, Dai Y, Chen W, Chen F-F, et al. Co-evolved ascorbate oxidases of plant and the blast fungus orchestrate host apoplast redox state to modulate rice immunity. Mol Plant. 2022;15(8):1347–66. doi:10.1016/j.molp.2022.07.001. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

141. Tekin M, Çat A, Akan K, Catal M, Akar T. A new virulent race of wheat stripe rust pathogen (Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici) on the resistance gene Yr5 in Turkey. Plant Dis. 2021;105(10):3292. doi:10.1094/pdis-03-21-0629-pdn. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

142. Chen X, Moore M, Milus E, Long D, Line R, Marshall D, et al. Wheat stripe rust epidemics and races of Puccinia striiformis f. sp. tritici in the United States in 2000. Plant Dis. 2002;86(1):39–46. doi:10.1094/pdis.2002.86.1.39. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

143. Kukreti A. Role of omics technologies in plant pathology. In: Recent innovations and approaches in plant pathology. Kurukshetra, India: Stella International Publicatio. Vol. 1; 2023. p. 73–102. [Google Scholar]

144. Crandall SG, Gold KM, Jiménez-Gasco MDM, Filgueiras CC, Willett DS. A multi-omics approach to solving problems in plant disease ecology. PLoS One. 2020;15(9):e0237975. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0237975. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

145. Ye H, Lin Q, Luo H. Applications of transcriptomics and proteomics in understanding fish immunity. Fish Shellfish Immunol. 2018;77:319–27. doi:10.1016/j.fsi.2018.03.046. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

146. Natnan ME, Mayalvanan Y, Jazamuddin FM, Aizat WM, Low CF, Goh HH, et al. Omics strategies in current advancements of infectious fish disease management. Biology. 2021;10(11):1086. doi:10.3390/biology10111086. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

147. Castro-Moretti FR, Gentzel IN, Mackey D, Alonso AP. Metabolomics as an emerging tool for the study of plant-pathogen interactions. Metabolites. 2020;10(2):52. doi:10.3390/metabo10020052. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

148. Yan J, Risacher SL, Shen L, Saykin AJ. Network approaches to systems biology analysis of complex disease: integrative methods for multi-omics data. Brief Bioinform. 2017;19(6):1370–81. doi:10.1093/bib/bbx066. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

149. Parnell JJ, Berka R, Young HA, Sturino JM, Kang Y, Barnhart DM, et al. From the lab to the farm: an industrial perspective of plant beneficial microorganisms. Front Plant Sci. 2016;7:1110. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]

150. Ronald P. Lab to farm: applying research on plant genetics and genomics to crop improvement. PLoS Biol. 2014;12(6):e1001878. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001878. [Google Scholar] [PubMed] [CrossRef]

151. Passioura J. Translational research in agriculture. Can we do it better? Crop Pasture Sci. 2020;71:517–28. doi:10.1071/cp20066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

152. Cascone G, Scuderi A, Guarnaccia P, Timpanaro G. Promoting innovations in agriculture: living labs in the development of rural areas. J Clean Prod. 2024;443:141247. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.141247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]