| Literature DB >> 25110630 |
Renata A Castro1, Maria Carolina Quecine2, Paulo T Lacava3, Bruna D Batista2, Danice M Luvizotto2, Joelma Marcon2, Anderson Ferreira4, Itamar S Melo5, João L Azevedo6.
Abstract
The mangrove ecosystem is a coastal tropical biome located in the transition zone between land and sea that is characterized by periodic flooding, which confers unique and specific environmental conditions on this biome. In these ecosystems, the vegetation is dominated by a particular group of plant species that provide a unique environment harboring diverse groups of microorganisms, including the endophytic microorganisms that are the focus of this study. Because of their intimate association with plants, endophytic microorganisms could be explored for biotechnologically significant products, such as enzymes, proteins, antibiotics and others. Here, we isolated endophytic microorganisms from two mangrove species, Rhizophora mangle and Avicennia nitida, that are found in streams in two mangrove systems in Bertioga and Cananéia, Brazil. Bacillus was the most frequently isolated genus, comprising 42% of the species isolated from Cananéia and 28% of the species from Bertioga. However, other common endophytic genera such as Pantoea, Curtobacterium and Enterobacter were also found. After identifying the isolates, the bacterial communities were evaluated for enzyme production. Protease activity was observed in 75% of the isolates, while endoglucanase activity occurred in 62% of the isolates. Bacillus showed the highest activity rates for amylase and esterase and endoglucanase. To our knowledge, this is the first reported diversity analysis performed on endophytic bacteria obtained from the branches of mangrove trees and the first overview of the specific enzymes produced by different bacterial genera. This work contributes to our knowledge of the microorganisms and enzymes present in mangrove ecosystems.Entities:
Keywords: Bacteria; Biotechnological potential; Endophytes; Enzymes; Mangrove
Year: 2014 PMID: 25110630 PMCID: PMC4125609 DOI: 10.1186/2193-1801-3-382
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Springerplus ISSN: 2193-1801
Distribution of the genera of endophytic bacteria isolated from Brazilian mangrove forests
|
| Sample a | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cananéia | Bertioga | |||
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 5 | 3 | 4 | 2 |
|
| - | 2 | - | - |
|
| - | 1 | - | - |
|
| 1 | - | - | - |
|
| 1 | - | 1 | - |
|
| 3 | - | - | - |
|
| 1 | - | 1 | 1 |
|
| 2 | - | - | - |
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
|
| - | - | 3 | - |
|
| - | - | - | 3 |
|
| - | - | - | 3 |
|
| - | - | - | 1 |
|
| - | - | 1 | - |
|
| ||||
| S | 6 | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| N | 13 | 6 | 11 | 10 |
| D | 2.35 | 1.12 | 2.08 | 2.17 |
| H'(loge) | 1.74 | 1.00 | 1.59 | 1.69 |
| 1-Lambda' | 0.84 | 0.72 | 0.84 | 0.89 |
aNumber of isolates from each plant and sample location.
bDiversity parameters: S, total taxons; N, total individuals; D, species richness (Margalef); H' (loge), Shannon; and 1-λ, Simpson diversity indices for endophytic bacterial communities isolated from A. nitida and R. mangle branches sampled in Cananéia and Bertioga, Brazil.
Identification by partial sequencing of 16S rDNA of isolates from mangrove sediments
| Isolates | Class | Genus | Coverage | Identidade | Nearst Taxa |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MBR2.20 | Actinobacteria |
| 100 | 100 |
|
| MBR2.21 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MBR2.22 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.54 |
| 100 | 100 |
| |
| MBA2.52 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCR2.49 | Bacilli |
| 100 | 99 |
|
| MCR2.51 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MCR2.56 | 100 | 94 |
| ||
| MCA2.42 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.51 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MCA2.56 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MCA2.53 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MCA2.41 | 100 | 97 |
| ||
| MBR2.4 | 100 | 98 |
| ||
| MBR2.41 | 100 | 95 |
| ||
| MBA2.9 | 94 | 96 |
| ||
| MBA2.33 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MBA2.4 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MBA2.18 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.12 | Alphaproteobacteria |
| 100 | 99 |
|
| MBR2.7 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MBA2.41 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.9 |
| 100 | 99 |
| |
| MBR2.46 |
| 100 | 100 |
| |
| MBR2.39 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MBR2.33 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MBA2.44 |
| 100 | 100 |
| |
| MBA2.27 | Betaproteobacteria | Alcaligenes | 100 | 100 |
|
| MBA2.16 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MBA2.15 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCR2.37 | Gammaproteobacteria |
| 100 | 98 |
|
| MCR2.29 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.21 |
| 100 | 99 |
| |
| MCA2.27 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCA2.23 | 100 | 100 |
| ||
| MCA2.20 |
| 100 | 100 |
| |
| MCA2.39 | 100 | 99 |
| ||
| MCR2.33 |
| 100 | 100 |
| |
| MBR2.29 |
| 100 | 99 |
| |
| MBA2.19 |
| 100 | 98 |
|
Diversity t-test ( < 0.05) for bacterial communities isolated from and branches
| Bertioga VS Cananeia | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shannon index | Variance |
| T | |
|
| 0.644 | 0.464 (ns) | ||
|
| 1.79 | 0.037 | ||
|
| 1.67 | 0.037 | ||
|
| ||||
|
| 0.432 | 0.803 (ns) | ||
|
| 1.87 | 0.031 | ||
|
| 1.64 | 0.051 | ||
ns - non-significant.
The mangroves are located in Bertioga and Cananéia, SP, Brazil.
Figure 1Principal component analysis (PCA) based on the molecular identification of bacterial isolates from Cananéia– (C/A), Cananéia– (C/R), Bertioga– (B/A), and Bertioga– (B/R). The values on the axes indicate the variance explained.
Enzymatic activity of the endophytic bacteria isolated from mangrove forests
| Genus | Isolates a | Enzymatic Index (EI) b | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amylase | Esterase | Lipase | Protease | Endoglucanase | ||
|
| MBA2.15 | - | - | 2.23 f | 1.43 e | - |
| MBA2.27 | - | - | 4.25 c | - | 1.65 c | |
| (MBA2.16) | - | - | 1.73 g | 2.15 c | 1.98 b | |
|
| MCA2.41 | - | - | 1.35 g | - | 1.60 c |
| MCA2.42 | - | - | 2.80 e | 2.48 b | 2.58 a | |
| MBA2.18 | - | - | 4.38 c | 1.23 f | 2.08 b | |
| MBA2.33 | 2.50 b | - | 4.80 c | - | 2.73 a | |
| MBA2.4 | - | - | 2.55 f | 1.75 d | 2.80 a | |
| MBA2.9 | 1.58 e | - | - | - | - | |
| MBR2.4 | 1.55 e | - | - | - | 2.80 a | |
| MBR2.41 | 2.25 c | 1.60 b | - | 1.33 f | 1.60 c | |
| MCA2.51 | - | - | 3.13 d | 1.58 d | 2.75 a | |
| MCA2.53 | 2.75 a | 1.63 b | - | 1.10 f | 2.00 b | |
| MCA2.56 | 2.28 b | - | 1.63 g | 1.23 f | 1.90 b | |
| MCR2.49 | 2.70 a | 1.58 b | - | 1.65 d | - | |
| MCR2.51 | - | - | 3.13 d | 1.58 d | 2.75 a | |
| MCR2.56 | 2.28 b | 1.85 a | - | 1.23 f | 2.23 b | |
|
| MCA2.9 | 1.80 d | - | - | 2.18 c | - |
|
| MCA2.21 | 2.43 b | - | - | 1.58 d | - |
| MCA2.23 | - | - | 2.30 f | - | - | |
| MCA2.27 | 2.53 b | - | - | 1.53 e | - | |
|
| MBR2.20 | - | - | - | 2.75 a | - |
| MBR2.21 | - | - | - | 1.35 e | 2.38 a | |
| MBR2.22) | - | 1.60 b | - | 1.05 g | 1.43 c | |
|
| MCR2.29) | - | - | - | 1.78 d | 1.73 c |
| MCR2.37 | - | - | 2.50 f | 1.35 e | - | |
|
| MBA2.19 | 1.63 e | 1.30 c | 6.83 a | - | - |
|
| MBA2.52 | 1.73 d | - | - | 1.15 f | 2.13 b |
| MCA2.54 | - | - | 1.48 g | 1.75 d | 2.93 a | |
|
| MBA2.41 | 1.80 d | - | 5.13 b | - | 2.13 b |
| MBR2.7 | 2.50 b | - | 3.48 d | 1.88 d | - | |
| MCA2.12 | 2.78 a | - | - | 1.65 d | - | |
|
| MBR2.33 | - | - | - | 2.3 c | 2.28 b |
| MBR2.39 | - | - | 3.08 d | - | 2.60 a | |
| MBR2.46 | - | - | 2.90 e | - | 2.90 a | |
|
| MCR2.33 | - | - | - | 1.68 d | 2.23 b |
|
| MBA2.44 | - | - | 4.75 b | 2.53 b | - |
|
| MBR2.29 | 1.43 f | - | 2.50 e | 1.55 d | 2.63 a |
|
| MCA2.20 | - | 1.38 c | - | 2.5 b | - |
| MCA2.39 | 1.15 g | - | - | 1.7 d | - | |
aBacterial identification at the genus level with the name of the isolates in parentheses. The isolates were named according to host and the location of the samples: MCR, Mangrove Cananéia Rhizophora mangle; MCA, Mangrove Cananéia Avicennia nitida; MBR, Mangrove Bertioga Rhizophora mangle; MBA, Mangrove Bertioga Avicennia nitida.
bThe enzymatic index was measured by determining the ratio of degradation halo diameter/bacterial colony diameter. Values with the same letter within a column are not significantly (p < 0.05) different according to the Scott-Knott test. The results represent the means of four replicates for each isolate.