doi:10.48130/opr-0026-0005

[1]

Zhang P, Sun Y, Zhou J, Li J, Yu R, et al. 2024. Specific responses in soil metabolite alteration and fungal community decline to the long-term monocropping of Lisianthus. Scientia Horticulturae 337:113578

doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2024.113578

[2]

Huang LF, Song LX, Xia XJ, Mao WH, Shi K, et al. 2013. Plant-soil feedbacks and soil sickness: from mechanisms to application in agriculture. Journal of Chemical Ecology 39:232−242

doi: 10.1007/s10886-013-0244-9

[3]

Fujii K, Shibata M, Kitajima K, Ichie T, Kitayama K, et al. 2018. Plant–soil interactions maintain biodiversity and functions of tropical forest ecosystems. Ecological Research 33:149−160

doi: 10.1007/s11284-017-1511-y

[4]

Bennett JA, Klironomos J. 2019. Mechanisms of plant–soil feedback: interactions among biotic and abiotic drivers. New Phytologist 222:91−96

doi: 10.1111/nph.15603

[5]

van der Putten WH, Bardgett RD, Bever JD, Bezemer TM, Casper BB, et al. 2013. Plant–soil feedbacks: the past, the present and future challenges. Journal of Ecology 101:265−276

doi: 10.1111/1365-2745.12054

[6]

Fry EL, Johnson GN, Hall AL, Pritchard WJ, Bullock JM, et al. 2018. Drought neutralises plant–soil feedback of two mesic grassland forbs. Oecologia 186:1113−125

doi: 10.1007/s00442-018-4082-x

[7]

Pervaiz ZH, Iqbal J, Zhang Q, Chen D, Wei H, et al. 2020. Continuous cropping alters multiple biotic and abiotic indicators of soil health. Soil Systems 4:59−89

doi: 10.3390/soilsystems4040059

[8]

Bennett JA, Maherali H, Reinhart KO, Lekberg Y, Hart MM, et al. 2017. Plant-soil feedbacks and mycorrhizal type influence temperate forest population dynamics. Science 355:181−184

doi: 10.1126/science.aai8212

[9]

Smith‐Ramesh LM, Reynolds HL. 2017. The next frontier of plant–soil feedback research: unraveling context dependence across biotic and abiotic gradients. Journal of Vegetation Science 28:484−494

doi: 10.1111/jvs.12519

[10]

Kulmatiski A, Beard KH, Norton JM, Heavilin JE, Forero LE, et al. 2017. Live long and prosper: plant–soil feedback, lifespan, and landscape abundance covary. Ecology 98:3063−3073

doi: 10.1002/ecy.2011

[11]

Liang Y, Zhao P, Liu B, Sun D, Ruan J, et al. 2024. Genetic mechanisms of petal morphogenesis in Eustoma grandiflorum. Scientia Horticulturae 324:112558

doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2023.112558

[12]

Mazzoleni S, Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Chiusano ML, Termolino P, et al. 2015. Inhibitory and toxic effects of extracellular self-DNA in litter: a mechanism for negative plant–soil feedbacks? New Phytologist 205:1195−1210

doi: 10.1111/nph.13121

[13]

Levy-Booth DJ, Campbell RG, Gulden RH, Hart MM, Powell JR, et al. 2007. Cycling of extracellular DNA in the soil environment. Soil Biology and Biochemistry 39:2977−2991

doi: 10.1016/j.soilbio.2007.06.020

[14]

Mazzoleni S, Cartenì F, Bonanomi G, Senatore M, Termolino P, et al. 2015. Inhibitory effects of extracellular self-DNA: a general biological process? New Phytologist 206:127−132

doi: 10.1111/nph.13306

[15]

Barbero F, Guglielmotto M, Capuzzo A, Maffei ME. 2016. Extracellular Self-DNA (esDNA), but not heterologous plant or insect DNA (etDNA), induces plasma membrane depolarization and calcium signaling in Lima Bean (Phaseolus lunatus) and Maize (Zea mays). International Journal of Molecular Sciences 17:1659

doi: 10.3390/ijms17101659

[16]

Duran-Flores D, Heil M. 2018. Extracellular self-DNA as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) that triggers self-specific immunity induction in plants. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity 72:78−88

doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2017.10.010

[17]

Carbajal-Valenzuela IA, Medina-Ramos G, Caicedo-Lopez LH, Jiménez-Hernández A, Ortega-Torres AE, et al. 2021. Extracellular DNA: insight of a signal molecule in crop protection. Biology 10:1022

doi: 10.3390/biology10101022

[18]

Rassizadeh L, Cervero R, Flors V, Gamir J. 2021. Extracellular DNA as an elicitor of broad-spectrum resistance in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Science 312:111036

doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2021.111036

[19]

Durán-Flores D, Heil M. 2023. The CpG-dependent plant immune response to self-DNA triggers defence hormone signalling and improves fitness. Research Square

doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-2649049/v1

[20]

Tjia TOS, Meitha K, Septiani P, Awaludin R, Sumardi D. 2023. Extracellular self-DNA induces local inhibition of growth, regulates production of reactive oxygen species, and gene expression in rice roots. Biologia Plantarum 67:9−18

doi: 10.32615/bp.2022.037

[21]

Ronchi A, Foscari A, Zaina G, De Paoli E, Incerti G. 2023. Self-DNA early exposure in cultivated and weedy setaria triggers ROS degradation signaling pathways and root growth inhibition. Plants 12:1288

doi: 10.3390/plants12061288

[22]

Zhou X, Gao H, Zhang X, Khashi U Rahman M, Mazzoleni S, et al. 2023. Plant extracellular self-DNA inhibits growth and induces immunity via the jasmonate signaling pathway. Plant Physiology 192:2475−2491

doi: 10.1093/plphys/kiad195

[23]

Chiusano ML, Incerti G, Colantuono C, Termolino P, Palomba E, et al. 2021. Arabidopsis thaliana response to extracellular DNA: self versus nonself exposure. Plants 10:1744

doi: 10.3390/plants10081744

[24]

Palomba E, Chiusano ML, Monticolo F, Langella MC, Sanchez M, et al. 2024. Extracellular self-DNA effects on yeast cell cycle and transcriptome during batch growth. Biomolecules 14:663

doi: 10.3390/biom14060663

[25]

Fauziah T, Esyanti RR, Meitha K, Iriawati, Hermawaty D, et al. 2025. Cell cycle arrest via DNA damage response (DDR) pathway induced by extracellular self-DNA (esDNA) application in rice root. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 219:109370

doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2024.109370

[26]

Vega-Muñoz I, Feregrino-Pérez AA, Torres-Pacheco I, Guevara-González RG. 2018. Exogenous fragmented DNA acts as a damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) inducing changes in CpG DNA methylation and defence-related responses in Lactuca Sativa. Functional Plant Biology 45:1065−1072

doi: 10.1071/FP18011

[27]

Lanzotti V, Grauso L, Mangoni A, Termolino P, Palomba E, et al. 2022. Metabolomics and molecular networking analyses in Arabidopsis thaliana show that extracellular self-DNA affects nucleoside/nucleotide cycles with accumulation of cAMP, cGMP and N6-methyl-AMP. Phytochemistry 204:113453

doi: 10.1016/j.phytochem.2022.113453

[28]

Idbella M, Bonanomi G, De Filippis F, Foscari A, Zotti M, et al. 2024. Negative plant-soil feedback in Arabidopsis thaliana: disentangling the effects of soil chemistry, microbiome, and extracellular self-DNA. Microbiological Research 281:127634

doi: 10.1016/j.micres.2024.127634

[29]

Mazzoleni S, Grauso L, De Falco B, Mangoni A, Termolino P, et al. 2025. Metabolomic changes in Arabidopsis thaliana exposed to extracellular self- and nonself-DNA: a reversible effect. Environmental and Experimental Botany 234:106149

doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2025.106149

[30]

Ronchi A, Incerti G, De Paoli E, Panico SC, Sciabbarrasi GL, et al. 2025. Arabidopsis thaliana roots exposed to extracellular self-DNA: evidence of epigenetic effects. Epigenomes 9:13

doi: 10.3390/epigenomes9020013

[31]

Barbero F, Guglielmotto M, Islam M, Maffei ME. 2021. Extracellular fragmented self-DNA is involved in plant responses to biotic stress. Frontiers in Plant Science 12:686121

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2021.686121

[32]

McGovern RJ. 2018. Diseases of Lisianthus. In Handbook of Florists' Crops Diseases, ed. McGovern RJ, ElmerWH. Cham: Springer. pp. 583–632 doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-39670-5_20

[33]

Foscari A, Alberti G, Zotti M, Incerti G. 2022. Species-specific DNA distribution in spruce–beech forest soil. Environmental DNA 4:1120−1135

doi: 10.1002/edn3.307

[34]

R Core Team. 2025. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. www.R-project.org

[35]

Jiang J, Ma S, Ye N, Jiang M, Cao J, et al. 2017. WRKY transcription factors in plant responses to stresses. Journal of Integrative Plant Biology 59:86−101

doi: 10.1111/jipb.12513

[36]

Zhou J, Wang X, He Y, Sang T, Wang P, et al. 2020. Differential phosphorylation of the transcription factor WRKY33 by the protein kinases CPK5/CPK6 and MPK3/MPK6 cooperatively regulates camalexin biosynthesis in Arabidopsis. The Plant Cell 32:2621−2638

doi: 10.1105/tpc.19.00971

[37]

Li T, Zhou T, Liang J, Zhang D, Teng N, et al. 2022. Overexpression of lily LlWRKY22 enhances multiple abiotic stress tolerances in transgenic Arabidopsis. Ornamental Plant Research 2:1−10

doi: 10.48130/opr-2022-0017

[38]

Li S, Khoso MA, Xu H, Zhang C, Liu Z, et al. 2024. WRKY transcription factors (TFs) as key regulators of plant resilience to environmental stresses: current perspective. Agronomy 14:2421

doi: 10.3390/agronomy14102421

[39]

Movahedi A, Hwarari D, Dzinyela R, Ni S, Yang L. 2025. A close-up of regulatory networks and signaling pathways of MKK5 in biotic and abiotic stresses. Critical Reviews in Biotechnology 45:473−490

doi: 10.1080/07388551.2024.2344584

[40]

Hu Y, Dong Q, Yu D. 2012. Arabidopsis WRKY46 coordinates with WRKY70 and WRKY53 in basal resistance against pathogen pseudomonas syringae. Plant Science 185−186:288−297

doi: 10.1016/j.plantsci.2011.12.003

[41]

Negi N, Khurana P. 2021. A salicylic acid inducible mulberry WRKY transcription factor, MiWRKY53 is involved in plant defence response. Plant Cell Reports 40:2151−2171

doi: 10.1007/s00299-021-02710-8

[42]

Wani SH, Anand S, Singh B, Bohra A, Joshi R. 2021. WRKY transcription factors and plant defense responses: latest discoveries and future prospects. Plant Cell Reports 40:1071−1085

doi: 10.1007/s00299-021-02691-8

[43]

Zhao Y, Zheng Y, Jiang L, Niu Y, Yang Y, et al. 2022. Identification of stress-related characteristics of the WRKY gene family: a case study of Dendrobium catenatum. Ornamental Plant Research 2:1−15

doi: 10.48130/opr-2022-0021

[44]

Ullah A, Sun H, Hakim, Yang X, Zhang X. 2018. A novel cotton WRKY gene, GhWRKY6-like, improves salt tolerance by activating the ABA signaling pathway and scavenging of reactive oxygen species. Physiologia Plantarum 162:439−54

doi: 10.1111/ppl.12651

[45]

Zhang X, Yang Y, Zhao M, Yang L, Jiang J, et al. 2020. Acidovorax citrulli type III effector AopP suppresses plant immunity by targeting the watermelon transcription factor WRKY6. Frontiers in Plant Science 11:579218

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.579218

[46]

Zu G, Guo Z, Yang H, Tang Y, He Y, et al. 2025. Manganese superoxide dismutase 4 interacting with WRKY6 enhances cadmium tolerance in potato plants. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 302:118659

doi: 10.1016/j.ecoenv.2025.118659

[47]

Trujillo M, Ichimura K, Casais C, Shirasu K. 2008. Negative regulation of PAMP-triggered immunity by an E3 ubiquitin ligase triplet in Arabidopsis. Current Biology 18:1396−401

doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2008.07.085

[48]

Furlan G, Nakagami H, Eschen-Lippold L, Jiang X, Majovsky P, et al. 2017. Changes in PUB22 ubiquitination modes triggered by MITOGEN-ACTIVATED PROTEIN KINASE3 dampen the immune response. The Plant Cell 29:726−745

doi: 10.1105/tpc.16.00654

[49]

Zhou B, Zeng L. 2018. The tomato U-box type E3 ligase PUB13 acts with group III ubiquitin E2 enzymes to modulate FLS2-mediated immune signaling. Frontiers in Plant Science 9:615

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2018.00615

[50]

Wang L, Bian L, Shi Q, Li X, Sun Y, et al. 2024. The Vitis yeshanensis U-box E3 ubiquitin ligase VyPUB21 enhances resistance to powdery mildew by targeting degradation of NIM1-interacting (NIMIN) protein. Plant Cell Reports 43:93−107

doi: 10.1007/s00299-024-03180-4

[51]

Yi SY, Nekrasov V, Ichimura K, Kang SY, Shirasu K. 2024. Plant U-box E3 ligases PUB20 and PUB21 negatively regulate pattern-triggered immunity in arabidopsis. Plant Molecular Biology 114:7−21

doi: 10.1007/s11103-023-01409-6

[52]

Dou R, Miguel VN, Grubb LE, Rana M, Saltzman B, et al. 2025. Class IV plant U-box proteins function redundantly to optimize protein accumulation of receptor-like cytoplasmic kinase BIK1. Plant Physiology 198:kiaf267

doi: 10.1101/2025.02.01.635694

[53]

Ramírez Gaona M, van Tuinen A, Schipper D, Ramos Peregrina Á, Visser RGF, et al. 2025. Mutation of PUB21 in tomato leads to reduced susceptibility to necrotrophic fungi. BMC Plant Biology 25:1038

doi: 10.1186/s12870-025-07107-3

[54]

Mazzoleni S, Cartenì F, Bonanomi G, Incerti G, Chiusano ML, et al. 2014. New perspectives on the use of nucleic acids in pharmacological applications: inhibitory action of extracellular self-DNA in biological systems. Phytochemistry Reviews 13:937−946

doi: 10.1007/s11101-014-9386-9

[55]

Zou Y, Li C, Wang K, Li M, Yang S, et al. 2024. Inhibition of Rhizopus rot in postharvest peach fruit during storage by specific extracellular fragmented self-DNA treatment. Scientia Horticulturae 329:112914

doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2024.112914

[56]

Zou Y, Yang S, Ren Q, Chen J, Wang K, et al. 2024. Extracellular self-DNA as a DAMP signal for induced systemic resistance to anthracnose rot in postharvest loquat fruit via EjRAV2-EjERF39 module. Postharvest Biology and Technology 216:113023

doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2024.113023

[57]

Carbajal-Valenzuela IA, Guzmán-Cruz R, González-Chavira MM, Medina-Ramos G, Serrano-Jamaica LM, et al. 2022. Response of plant immunity markers to early and late application of extracellular DNA from different sources in tomato (Solanum lycopersicum). Agriculture 12:1587−601

doi: 10.3390/agriculture12101587

[58]

Vega-Muñoz I, Herrera-Estrella A, Martínez-de la Vega O, Heil M. 2023. ATM and ATR, two central players of the DNA damage response, are involved in the induction of systemic acquired resistance by extracellular DNA, but not the plant wound response. Frontiers in Immunology 14:1175786

doi: 10.3389/fimmu.2023.1175786

[59]

Li C, Wang K, Zou Y, Lei C, Chen Z, et al. 2023. Extracellular self-DNA induced a PTI-related local defence against Rhizopus rot in postharvest peach fruit. Postharvest Biology and Technology 200:112306

doi: 10.1016/j.postharvbio.2023.112306

[60]

Bonanomi G, Zotti M, Idbella M, Termolino P, De Micco V, et al. 2022. Field evidence for litter and self‐DNA inhibitory effects on Alnus glutinosa roots. New Phytologist 236:399−412

doi: 10.1111/nph.18391

[61]

Shu LJ, Kahlon PS, Ranf S. 2023. The power of patterns: new insights into pattern‐triggered immunity. New Phytologist 240:960−967

doi: 10.1111/nph.19148

[62]

Boller T, Felix G. 2009. A renaissance of elicitors: perception of microbe-associated molecular patterns and danger signals by pattern-recognition receptors. Annual Review of Plant Biology 60:379−406

doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.57.032905.105346

[63]

Postel S, Kemmerling B. 2009. Plant systems for recognition of pathogen-associated molecular patterns. Seminars in Cell and Developmental Biology 20:1025−1031

doi: 10.1016/j.semcdb.2009.06.002

[64]

Heil M, Land WG. 2014. Danger signals - damaged-self recognition across the tree of life. Frontiers in Plant Science 5:578−594

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2014.00578

[65]

Monaghan J, Zipfel C. 2012. Plant pattern recognition receptor complexes at the plasma membrane. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 15:349−357

doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2012.05.006

[66]

Ravindran B. 2025. Innate immunity and inflammation: conuersim between PAMP_S and DAMP_S. Scandinavian Journal of Immunology 102:e70060

doi: 10.1111/sji.70060

[67]

Gust AA, Pruitt R, Nürnberger T. 2017. Sensing danger: key to activating plant immunity. Trends in Plant Science 22:779−791

doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2017.07.005

[68]

Saijo Y, Loo EP. 2019. Plant immunity in signal integration between biotic and abiotic stress responses. New Phytologist 225:87−104

doi: 10.1111/nph.15989

[69]

Zhou JM, Zhang Y. 2020. Plant immunity: danger perception and signaling. Cell 181:978−89

doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.028

[70]

Huot B, Yao J, Montgomery BL, He SY. 2014. Growth–defense tradeoffs in plants: a balancing act to optimize fitness. Molecular Plant 7:1267−1287

doi: 10.1093/mp/ssu049

[71]

He Z, Webster S, He SY. 2022. Growth–defense trade-offs in plants. Current Biology 32:R634−R639

doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2022.04.070

[72]

Gao M, Hao Z, Ning Y, He Z. 2024. Revisiting growth–defence trade‐offs and breeding strategies in crops. Plant Biotechnology Journal 22:1198−1205

doi: 10.1111/pbi.14258

[73]

Wen F, VanEtten HD, Tsaprailis G, Hawes MC. 2007. Extracellular proteins in Pea root tip and border cell exudates. Plant Physiology 143:773−783

doi: 10.1104/pp.106.091637

[74]

Wen F, White GJ, VanEtten HD, Xiong Z, Hawes MC. 2009. Extracellular DNA is required for root tip resistance to fungal infection. Plant Physiology 151:820−829

doi: 10.1104/pp.109.142067

[75]

Driouich A, Follet-Gueye ML, Vicré-Gibouin M, Hawes M. 2013. Root border cells and secretions as critical elements in plant host defense. Current Opinion in Plant Biology 16:489−495

doi: 10.1016/j.pbi.2013.06.010

[76]

Tran TM, MacIntyre A, Hawes M, Allen C. 2016. Escaping underground nets: extracellular DNases degrade plant extracellular traps and contribute to virulence of the plant pathogenic bacterium Ralstonia solanacearum. PLOS Pathogens 12:e1005686

doi: 10.1371/journal.ppat.1005686

[77]

Driouich A, Smith C, Ropitaux M, Chambard M, Boulogne I, et al. 2019. Root extracellular traps versus neutrophil extracellular traps in host defence, a case of functional convergence? Biological Reviews 94:1685−700

doi: 10.1111/brv.12522

[78]

Monticolo F, Palomba E, Termolino P, Chiaiese P, De Alteriis E, et al. 2020. The role of DNA in the extracellular environment: a focus on NETs, RETs and biofilms. Frontiers in Plant Science 11:589837

doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.589837