| Literature DB >> 24402360 |
Marcin Gołębiewski1, Edyta Deja-Sikora, Marcin Cichosz, Andrzej Tretyn, Borys Wróbel.
Abstract
Soil contamination with heavy metals is a widespread problem, especially prominent on grounds lying in the vicinity of mines, smelters, and other industrial facilities. Many such areas are located in Southern Poland; they are polluted mainly with Pb, Zn, Cd, or Cu, and locally also with Cr. As for now, little is known about most bacterial species thriving in such soils and even less about a core bacterial community--a set of taxa common to polluted soils. Therefore, we wanted to answer the question if such a set could be found in samples differing physicochemically and phytosociologically. To answer the question, we analyzed bacterial communities in three soil samples contaminated with Pb and Zn and two contaminated with Cr and lower levels of Pb and Zn. The communities were assessed with 16S rRNA gene fragments pyrosequencing. It was found that the samples differed significantly and Zn decreased both diversity and species richness at species and family levels, while plant species richness did not correlate with bacterial diversity. In spite of the differences between the samples, they shared many operational taxonomic units (OTUs) and it was possible to delineate the core microbiome of our sample set. The core set of OTUs comprised members of such taxa as Sphingomonas, Candidatus Solibacter, or Flexibacter showing that particular genera might be shared among sites ~40 km distant.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24402360 PMCID: PMC3962847 DOI: 10.1007/s00248-013-0344-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microb Ecol ISSN: 0095-3628 Impact factor: 4.552
Soil samples characteristics
| Name | GPS coordinates | Soil type | OM (%) | Cino a (%) | P2O5 (%) | H2O (%) | pH | Fe2O3 (%) | Cdt b (mg/kg) | Cdba c (mg/kg) | Pbt (mg/kg) | Pbba (mg/kg) | Znt (mg/kg) | Znba (mg/kg) | Crt (mg/kg) | Crba (mg/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | 50º 02′ 54,8″ N, 19º 31′ 34,2″ E | Sand | 2.82 | 0.12 | 0.02 | 2.18 | 7.0 | 2.23 | 4.2 ± 0.2 | 2.5 ± 0.1 | 204 ± 5 | 104 ± 5 | 749 ± 5 | 521 ± 5 | 740 ± 10 | 492 ± 10 |
| A2 | 50º 02′ 40,4″ N, 19º 31′ 38,4″ E | Silt | 4.62 | 0.09 | 0.09 | 2.77 | 6.5 | 3.23 | 3.5 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 203 ± 5 | 99 ± 5 | 767 ± 5 | 538 ± 5 | 760 ± 10 | 501 ± 10 |
| O1 | 50º 17′ 21,0″ N, 19º 30′ 48,1″ E | Sand | 19.90 | 0.30 | 0.13 | 5.60 | 6.7 | 2.02 | 3.4 ± 0.2 | 2.1 ± 0.1 | 1,378 ± 5 | 730 ± 5 | 1,247 ± 5 | 863 ± 5 | 100 ± 10 | 63 ± 10 |
| O2 | 50º 17′ 17,2″ N, 19º 30′ 28,8″ E | Sand | 16.23 | 0.62 | 0.05 | 2.95 | 6.5 | 1.06 | 3.9 ± 0.2 | 2.3 ± 0.1 | 461 ± 5 | 241 ± 5 | 957 ± 5 | 692 ± 5 | 180 ± 10 | 121 ± 10 |
| O3 | 50º 17′ 15,2″ N, 19º 30′ 11,7″ E | Sand | 3.82 | 30.37 | 0.01 | 1.07 | 7.6 | 7.43 | 3.7 ± 0.2 | 2.2 ± 0.1 | 1,097 ± 5 | 563 ± 5 | 2,002 ± 5 | 1,478 ± 5 | 300 ± 10 | 196 ± 10 |
aInorganic carbon content
bTotal concentration
cBioavailable concentration
Phytosociological analysis of sampling points
| Sample | Phytosociological classification | Plant sp. richness | Trees coverage | Herbaceous plants coverage | Main species |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | No-rank Class: | 12 | 0 % | 15 % + 10 % mosses |
|
| A2 | Assoc.: Alliance: Order: Class: | 36 | 0 % | 100 % |
|
| O1 | Assoc.: Alliance: Order: Class: | 35 | 65 % | 80 % |
|
| O2 | Assoc.: Alliance: Order: Class: | 14 | 5 % (shrubs) | 20 % |
|
| O3 | No-rank Class: | 14 | 0 % | 15 % |
|
Sequencing statistics
| Sample | Raw reads no. | High-quality reads | Chimeras | High-quality non-chimeric reads | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Number | %a | Number | %b | Number | %a | ||
| A1 | 4,235 | 3,054 | 72.1 % | 422 | 13.8 % | 2,632 | 62.1 % |
| A2 | 5,947 | 4,229 | 71.1 % | 783 | 18.5 % | 3,446 | 57.9 % |
| O1 | 15,967 | 7,474 | 46.8 % | 412 | 5.5 % | 7,062 | 44.2 % |
| O2 | 17,522 | 6,215 | 35.5 % | 363 | 5.8 % | 5,852 | 33.4 % |
| O3 | 22,714 | 4,836 | 21.2 % | 396 | 8.2 % | 4,440 | 19.5 % |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
aPercent of raw reads
bPercent of high-quality reads
Fig. 1Rarefaction curves. a 0.03 dissimilarity level, b 0.10 dissimilarity level
Species richness estimators
| Sample | OTUs observed | Chao1 | ACE | Catchallb | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.03a | 0.10a | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.10 | |
| A1 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 1,747 |
| A2 | 826 | 342 | 2,530 (2,150–3,019) | 881 (697–1,160) | 4,515 (4,139–4,934) | 1,347 (1,195–1,527) | 6,662 |
|
| O1 | 699 | 263 | 1,589 (1,383–1,858) | 436 (372–536) | 2,596 (2,361–2,864) | 576 (504–670) | 2,558 | 610 |
| O2 | 749 | 312 | 1,728 (1,507–2,013) | 523 (448–640) | 2,723 (2,485–2,993) | 637 (569–723) | 3,239 | 900 |
| O3 | 476 | 224 | 1,069 (903–1,301) | 402 (330–521) | 1,768 (1,589–1,977) | 571 (495–667) | 1,934 | 546 |
Each value is a mean of five obtained for random subsamples of equal size, 95 % confidence intervals are in parentheses. Highest values are in boldface
aDissimilarity level for OTU construction
bDue to a bug in catchall there is no confidence intervals for the estimations
Diversity and evenness estimators
| Sample | Shannon’s H′ | Shannon’s evenness | Phylodiversity | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.03a | 0.10a | 0.03 | 0.10 | ||
| A1 |
|
|
| 0.837 |
|
| A2 | 6.309 (6.249–6.368) | 4.800 (4.723–4.878) | 0.939 | 0.823 | 49.14 |
| O1 | 5.978 (5.909–6.047) | 4.280 (4.194–4.366) | 0.913 | 0.768 | 40,32 |
| O2 | 6.196 (6.137–6.254) | 4.810 (4.738–4.883) | 0.936 |
| 45,63 |
| O3 | 5.321 (5.247–5.395) | 4.169 (4.087–4.251) | 0.863 | 0.771 | 30,66 |
Each value is an average of five coming from random subsamples of size 1,500. 95 % confidence intervals are given in parentheses
aDissimilarity level for OTU construction
Correlation of zinc concentration with bacterial species richness and diversity estimators
| Spearman’s correlation coefficient and | |
|---|---|
| Sp. observed (OTUs 0.03) | ρ = −1, |
| Chao1 (OTUs 0.03) | ρ = −1, |
| ACE (OTUs 0.03) | ρ = −1, |
| Shannon’s H′ (OTUs 0.03) | ρ = −1, |
| Sp. observed (OTUs 0.10) | ρ = −1, |
| Chao1 (OTUs 0.10) | ρ = −1, |
| ACE (OTUs 0.10) | ρ = −1, |
| Shannon’s H′ (OTUs 0.10) | ρ = −0.90, |
| Phylodiversity | ρ = −1, |
Fig. 2Bacterial community structure in samples. a Phylum level, b class level
Fig. 3Most abundant genera in samples. a 10 genera of highest total abundance; b next 15 genera
Fig. 4Community distance heatmaps. Darker shade means greater distance (lower similarity). Light grey small distances (greater similarity), dark grey—greater distances (lower similarity). Heatmaps based on Bray-Curtis dissimilarity a at 0.03 dissimilarity level and b at 0.10 dissimilarity level; Heatmaps based on Morisita-Horn dissimilarity c at 0.03 dissimilarity level and d at 0.10 dissimilarity level
Fig. 5Venn diagrams of shared OTUs. a 0.03 dissimilarity level, b 0.10 dissimilarity level
Consensus taxonomies for 0.03 level core microbiome OTUs
| A1 | A2 | O1 | O2 | O3 | Ea | Total | Taxonomy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otu4707 | 4 | 3 | 4 | 6 | 6 | 0,979 | 23 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rickettsiales; Holosporaceae; Holospora; |
| Otu5214 | 13 | 26 | 24 | 36 | 41 | 0,960 | 140 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Sphingomonadales; Sphingomonadaceae; Sphingomonas; |
| Otu3722 | 11 | 3 | 12 | 4 | 9 | 0,925 | 39 | Chloroflexi;KD4-96; |
| Otu4868 | 6 | 17 | 18 | 15 | 3 | 0,903 | 59 | Acidobacteria; Acidobacteria; Acidobacteriales; Acidobacteriaceae; |
The numbers of reads in each sample and the total number are reported
aShannon evenness showing how evenly the reads were distributed among samples
Consensus taxonomies for 0.10 level core microbiome OTUs
| A1 | A2 | O1 | O2 | O3 | Ea | Total | Taxonomy | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otu1237 | 4 | 8 | 9 | 9 | 8 | 0.979 | 38 | WCHB1-60; |
| Otu1558 | 15 | 6 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 0.956 | 42 | Proteobacteria; Gammaproteobacteria; Legionellales; Coxiellaceae; Aquicella; |
| Otu1464 | 9 | 21 | 3 | 16 | 12 | 0.912 | 61 | Proteobacteria; Deltaproteobacteria; Myxococcales; Nannocystineae; Haliangiaceae; Haliangium; |
| Otu1410 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 4 | 0.969 | 41 | Proteobacteria; Deltaproteobacteria;GR-WP33-30;uncultured; |
| Otu1537 | 21 | 3 | 13 | 20 | 14 | 0.921 | 71 | Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; TRA3-20; |
| Otu1534 | 11 | 22 | 7 | 10 | 15 | 0.953 | 65 | Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria;SC-I-84; |
| Otu1572 | 41 | 21 | 23 | 25 | 53 | 0.957 | 163 | Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Nitrosomonadales; Nitrosomonadaceae;uncultured; |
| Otu1489 | 11 | 19 | 18 | 4 | 6 | 0.909 | 58 | Proteobacteria; Betaproteobacteria; Burkholderiales; Comamonadaceae; |
| Otu1428 | 37 | 46 | 36 | 74 | 48 | 0.977 | 241 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Sphingomonadales; Sphingomonadaceae; |
| Otu1248 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 5 | 13 | 0.919 | 36 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rickettsiales; Holosporaceae; Holospora; |
| Otu1434 | 35 | 38 | 45 | 36 | 8 | 0.938 | 162 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodospirillales; |
| Otu1574 | 7 | 18 | 13 | 26 | 13 | 0.948 | 77 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodospirillales; |
| Otu1524 | 12 | 23 | 19 | 19 | 3 | 0.916 | 76 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Rhizobiales; Methylocystaceae;uncultured; |
| Otu1557 | 10 | 13 | 18 | 17 | 3 | 0.926 | 61 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria; Caulobacterales; Caulobacteraceae; |
| Otu1531 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 4 | 3 | 0.973 | 22 | Chloroflexi;TK10; |
| Otu1522 | 28 | 19 | 11 | 14 | 6 | 0.928 | 78 | Chloroflexi;S085; |
| Otu1594 | 101 | 56 | 45 | 59 | 55 | 0.973 | 316 | Chloroflexi;KD4-96; |
| Otu1504 | 20 | 20 | 10 | 20 | 25 | 0.977 | 95 | Candidate_division_TM7; |
| Otu1589 | 74 | 11 | 96 | 61 | 58 | 0.915 | 300 | Bacteroidetes; Sphingobacteria; Sphingobacteriales; Cytophagaceae; Flexibacter; |
| Otu1573 | 23 | 79 | 79 | 140 | 40 | 0.902 | 361 | Bacteroidetes; Sphingobacteria; Sphingobacteriales; Chitinophagaceae; |
| Otu1470 | 42 | 109 | 90 | 72 | 54 | 0.966 | 367 | Acidobacteria; Acidobacteria; Acidobacteriales; Acidobacteriaceae; Candidatus_Solibacter; |
The numbers of reads in each sample and total number are reported
aShannon’s evenness showing how evenly the reads were distributed among samples