| Literature DB >> 20352404 |
Fernando Dini Andreote1, Ulisses Nunes da Rocha, Welington Luiz Araújo, João Lúcio Azevedo, Leonard Simon van Overbeek.
Abstract
Beneficial bacteria interact with plants by colonizing the rhizosphere and roots followed by further spread through the inner tissues, resulting in endophytic colonization. The major factors contributing to these interactions are not always well understood for most bacterial and plant species. It is believed that specific bacterial functions are required for plant colonization, but also from the plant side specific features are needed, such as plant genotype (cultivar) and developmental stage. Via multivariate analysis we present a quantification of the roles of these components on the composition of root-associated and endophytic bacterial communities in potato plants, by weighing the effects of bacterial inoculation, plant genotype and developmental stage. Spontaneous rifampicin resistant mutants of two bacterial endophytes, Paenibacillus sp. strain E119 and Methylobacterium mesophilicum strain SR1.6/6, were introduced into potato plants of three different cultivars (Eersteling, Robijn and Karnico). Densities of both strains in, or attached to potato plants were measured by selective plating, while the effects of bacterial inoculation, plant genotype and developmental stage on the composition of bacterial, Alphaproteobacterial and Paenibacillus species were determined by PCR-denaturing gradient gel-electrophoresis (DGGE). Multivariate analyses revealed that the composition of bacterial communities was mainly driven by cultivar type and plant developmental stage, while Alphaproteobacterial and Paenibacillus communities were mainly influenced by bacterial inoculation. These results are important for better understanding the effects of bacterial inoculations to plants and their possible effects on the indigenous bacterial communities in relation with other plant factors such as genotype and growth stage.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2010 PMID: 20352404 PMCID: PMC2847171 DOI: 10.1007/s10482-010-9421-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Antonie Van Leeuwenhoek ISSN: 0003-6072 Impact factor: 2.271
Characteristics of potato cultivars used in this study
| Eersteling | Robijn | Karnico | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Origin | The Netherlands | The Netherlands | The Netherlands |
| Pedigree | Mutant from |
|
|
| Period for maturity | Precocious | Very late | Late |
| Usage of plants | Feeding | Starch and feeding | Starch and dry organic matter |
| Resistance to diseases | Low | Low | High |
Data were retrieved from www.davesgarden.com, www.europotato.org and http://www.dpw.wau.nl
Total heterotrophic bacterial and target strains (CFU numbers) in roots samples
| Cultivars | Inoculation | Total community | Population of target bacteria | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month after inoculation | 2 months after inoculation | 1 month after inoculation | 2 months after inoculation | ||
| Eersteling | Control | 7.83 ± 0.10 | 7.12 ± 0.19 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 7.93 ± 0.24 | 6.77 ± 0.15 | 1.59 ± 1.09 | 2.97 ± 0.22 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 7.71 ± 0.44 | 7.11 ± 0.35 | 4.06 ± 0.17 | 3.76 ± 0.56 | |
| Robijn | Control | 7.51 ± 0.31 | 7.06 ± 0.28 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 7.90 ± 0.19 | 6.79 ± 0.16 | 2.48 ± 0.75 | 2.59 ± 0.58 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 7.96 ± 0.21 | 7.08 ± 0.29 | 3.88 ± 0.13 | 4.13 ± 0.46 | |
| Karnico | Control | 8.19 ± 0.40 | 7.27 ± 0.49 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 7.90 ± 0.25 | 6.89 ± 0.39 | 3.45 ± 0.34 | 2.04 ± 1.40 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 7.94 ± 0.21 | 7.12 ± 0.52 | 4.40 ± 0.18 | 4.01 ± 0.20 | |
Average values from four plants are calculated from Log-transformed CFU numbers and expressed per g plant and standard deviation are indicated
Total heterotrophic bacterial and target strains (CFU numbers) in endophytic samples
| Cultivars | Inoculation | Total community | Population of target bacteria | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 month after inoculation | 2 months after inoculation | 1 month after inoculation | 2 months after inoculation | ||
| Eersteling | Control | 6.03 ± 0.35 | 3.90 ± 0.52 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 5.08 ± 0.23 | 4.30 ± 0.14 | 0.22 ± 0.27 | 0.33 ± 0.66 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 5.97 ± 0.60 | 4.52 ± 0.46 | 2.34 ± 0.46 | 1.11 ± 0.65 | |
| Robijn | Control | 6.88 ± 0.06 | 5.29 ± 0.91 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 5.38 ± 1.28 | 4.86 ± 0.24 | 0.66 ± 0.58 | 1.34 ± 0.91 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 4.84 ± 0.59 | 4.67 ± 0.92 | 1.82 ± 0.67 | 0.95 ± 1.00 | |
| Karnico | Control | 5.37 ± 0.75 | 5.13 ± 0.70 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
| E119 | 4.93 ± 0.54 | 4.93 ± 1.22 | 0.59 ± 0.79 | 1.97 ± 1.61 | |
| SR1.6/6 | 4.99 ± 1.21 | 4.37 ± 1.62 | 0.86 ± 0.85 | 0.68 ± 0.82 | |
Average values from four plants are calculated from Log-transformed CFU numbers and expressed per g plant and standard deviation are indicated
Fig. 1Comparison between PCR-DGGE fingerprints for Paenibacillus sp. made from Robijn roots from juvenile (1-month old) (a) and flowering (two-months old) (b) plants. Dendrograms were made by Pearson correlation and arrow indicates the conspicuous band only present in E119rp inoculated juvenile plants
Statistical parameters calculated by multivariate analyses with inclusion of a Monte Carlo permutation test of bacterial, alphaproteobacterial and Paenibacillus PCR-DGGE fingerprints
| Targeted community | Plant Niche | Quantitative and nominal variables | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gradient | Analysis | Months | Karnico | Eersteling | Robijn | SR1.6/6rp | E119rp | ||
| Bacteria | Roots | 4.61 | CCA | 0.64* | 0.48* | 0.19 | 0.18 | 0.06 | 0.05 |
| Endophytes | 4.72 | CCA | 0.72* | 0.50* | 0.27* | 0.33* | 0.09 | 0.08 | |
|
| Roots | 2.04 | RDA | 0.04* | 0.47* | 0.20* | 0.11 | 0.03 | ND |
| Endophytes | 3.32 | RDA | 0.15* | 0.17* | 0.32* | 0.13 | 0.06 | ND | |
|
| Roots | 2.98 | RDA | 0.06* | 0.17* | 0.52* | 0.13* | ND | 0.02* |
| Endophytes | 3.17 | RDA | 0.05* | 0.12* | 0.32* | 0.40* | ND | 0.01 | |
Values for Lambda 1 indicate the amount of variance explained by each individual environmental parameter
*Variables statistically significant with P < 0.05 according to the MonteCarlo permutation test
ND non-determined values
Fig. 2Ordination diagrams made by multivariate analysis of PCR-DGGE fingerprints made with bacterial, alphaproteobacterial and Paenibacillus primers. Separate analysis were performed for DGGE patterns obtained with primers for the domain Bacteria (a, b), Alphaproteobacteria (c, d) and Paenibacillus spp. (e, f). Also different communities were evaluated individually for roots (a, c, e) and endophytic (b, d, f). All environmental variables influencing in each analysis are presented, however, only those with significant effect (P < 0.05), according to the Monte Carlo permutation test, is marked with *. Values represent the percentage of the correlation species-environmental variable explained in each axis