| Literature DB >> 26843819 |
Chunping Xiao1, Limin Yang1, Lianxue Zhang1, Cuijing Liu1, Mei Han1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Panax ginseng cannot be cultivated on the same land consecutively for an extended period, and the underlying mechanism regarding microorganisms is still being explored.Entities:
Keywords: DGGE; Panax ginseng; discontinuous cultivation; metabolic function; microbial composition
Year: 2015 PMID: 26843819 PMCID: PMC4703740 DOI: 10.1016/j.jgr.2015.04.004
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Ginseng Res ISSN: 1226-8453 Impact factor: 6.060
Soil samples used for diversity analysis and main physicochemical characteristics (, n = 3)
| Soil samples | Age (y) | Growth model | pH | Organic matter (g/kg) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| R0 (control) | 0 | Forest soil uncultivated | 6.47 ± 0.04a | 28.71 ± 1.99a |
| R1 | 1 | 1 | 5.74 ± 0.05b | 27.48 ± 1.23a,b |
| R2 | 2 | 2 | 5.53 ± 0.04c | 24.42 ± 1.39b |
| R4 | 4 | 4 | 5.44 ± 0.03c | 14.39 ± 1.24c |
| R2 + 2 | 4 | 2 + 2 | 5.42 ± 0.02c | 13.75 ± 0.78c |
| R3 + 3 | 6 | 3 + 3 | 5.21 ± 0.04c | 10.96 ± 0.76d |
| RL-07 | / | Fallow soil abandoned for 6 y | 5.49 ± 0.03bc | 6.37 ± 0.38e |
| RL-03 | / | Fallow soil abandoned for 10 y | 5.62 ± 0.04b | 25.89 ± 0.79b |
In the growth model column, a + b means Panax ginseng growing at one place for a yr, then transplanted to another place and growing for b yr
The letters indicate the tested with Shortest Significant ranges (SSR) at P = 0.05 of different treatments. Different letters denote a significant difference at p < 0.05 level
Fig. 1Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) banding patterns of 16S rDNA fragment and the clustering of DGGE profiles in Panax ginseng soil between different cultivation ages and modes. Lanes corresponding to different soil samples were indicated by numbers at the top (R0, forest soil uncultivated P. ginseng; R1–R4, direct-seeding soil; R2 + 2 and R3 + 3, transplanted soil; RL-07 and RL-03, fallow soil abandoned in 2007 and in 2003, respectively). The bands of DGGE profiles indicated by the numbers were detected, and some were excised, reamplified and subjected to sequencing. The sequenced results are listed in Table 2. The arrow on the left indicates the direction of DGGE electrophoresis and the percentage number indicates % denaturant.
Phylogenetic identification results of selected denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) bands from bacterial DGGE profiles in Fig. 11)
| Band no. | Similar strain (NCBI accession No.) | Similarity (%) | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Band-6 | Uncultured bacterium (KF106741.1) | 96 | Bacteria; unknown species |
| Band-7 | Uncultured actinobacterium (EF073893.1) | 99 | Actinobacteria; unknown species |
| Band-8 | Uncultured Hyphomicrobiaceae bacterium (EF665789.1) | 99 | Proteobacteria; Hyphomicrobiaceae |
| Band-9 | Uncultured | 100 | Fusobacteria; Fusobacteriaceae |
| Band-10 | Alpha proteobacterium LEMS (JF490046) | 96 | Proteobacteria; alpha proteobacterium |
| Band-12 | Uncultured actinobacterium (GU568941.1) | 98 | Actinobacteria; unknown species |
| Band-14 | Uncultured Firmicutes bacterium (EU300338.1) | 99 | Firmicutes; unknown species |
| Band-15 | Uncultured Rubrobacterales bacterium (GU983374.1) | 100 | Actinobacteria; Rubrobacteridae |
| Band-16 | Uncultured bacterium (KJ601351.1) | 100 | Bacteria |
| Band-18 | 100 | Proteobacteria; Sphingomonadaceae | |
| Band-20 | Uncultured bacterium (KF411798.1) | 100 | Bacteria |
| Band-22 | Chitinophagaceae bacterium (AB850958) | 98 | Proteobacteria; Sphingobacteriales |
| Band-23 | 100 | Sphingomonadales; Erythrobacteraceae | |
| Band-27 | Uncultured Acidobacteria bacterium (KJ191824.1) | 100 | Acidobacteriaceae; Acidobacteria |
| Band-28 | 100 | Proteobacteria; Alcaligenaceae | |
| Band-29 | Uncultured | 99 | Verrucomicrobia; Verrucomicrobiaceae |
| Band-30 | Uncultured actinobacterium (EF019447.1) | 100 | Actinobacteria |
| Band-31 | Uncultured | 99 | Proteobacteria; Helicobacteraceae |
| Band-32 | Uncultured alpha proteobacterium (EF662861) | 99 | Proteobacteria; Alphaproteobacteria |
| Band-33 | 99 | Proteobacteria; Rhodospirillaceae | |
| Band-36 | Uncultured Comamonadaceae bacterium (GU473122.1) | 97 | Proteobacteria; Comamonadaceae |
| Band-37 | 99 | Actinobacteria; Microbacteriaceae | |
| Band-39 | 99 | Bradyrhizobiaceae; | |
| Band-43 | Uncultured Acidobacteria bacterium (JX025749) | 100 | Acidobacteriales; Acidobacteriaceae |
| Band-46 | Uncultured actinobacterium (JX011472) | 100 | Actinobacteria |
| Band-52 | 99 | Proteobacteria; Bradyrhizobiaceae | |
| Band-55 | 99 | Proteobacteria; Sphingomonadaceae |
Only the highest homology matches are presented
Bands are numbered according to Fig. 1
Classification represents Phylum, order, and family to which a similar strain belongs
Fig. 2Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) banding patterns of 18S rDNA fragment and the clustering of DGGE profiles in Panax ginseng soil between different cultivation ages and modes. Lanes corresponding to different soil samples were indicated by numbers at the top (R0, forest soil uncultivated P. ginseng; R1–R4, direct-seeding soil; R2 + 2 and R3 + 3, transplanted soil; RL-07 and RL-03, fallow soil abandoned in 2007 and in 2003, respectively). The bands of DGGE profiles indicated by the numbers were detected and some of them were excised, re-amplified and subjected to sequencing. The sequenced results are listed in Table 3. The arrow on the left indicates the direction of DGGE electrophoresis and the percentage indicates % denaturant.
Phylogenetic identification results of selected denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (DGGE) bands from fungal DGGE profiles in Fig. 21)
| Band no. | Similar strain (NCBI accession no.) | Similarity (%) | Classification |
|---|---|---|---|
| Band-1 | 98 | Pezizomycotina | |
| Band-2 | Uncultured fungus (JN166410.1) | 99 | Fungi |
| Band-3 | 100 | Cystofilobasidiaceae; Guehomyces | |
| Band-4 | 99 | Hypocreales; Nectriaceae; | |
| Band-5 | 93 | Ichthyophonida; Creolimax | |
| Band-6 | 100 | Tremellaceae; Asterotremella | |
| Band-7 | 99 | Mortierellaceae; Mortierella | |
| Band-8 | 98 | Hypocreales; Nectriaceae; | |
| Band-9 | 97 | Mucorineae; Mucoraceae; Mucor | |
| Band-10 | 99 | Helotiales; Helotiaceae | |
| Band-11 | 99 | Phacidiaceae; Phacidium | |
| Band-12 | 97 | Hypocreales; | |
| Band-13 | 99 | Bionectriaceae; Clonostachys | |
| Band-14 | 98 | Ascomycota; Tetrachaetum | |
| Band-15 | 99 | Metazoa; Alicorhagiidae | |
| Band-16 | Uncultured Hygrophoraceae (EU300937.1) | 99 | Dikarya; Hygrophoraceae |
| Band-17 | 100 | Sordariomycetidae; Kionochaeta | |
| Band-18 | 97 | Tullbergiinae; | |
| Band-19 | 95 | Lumbricina; Aeolosomatidae | |
| Band-20 | 99 | Metazoa; Enchytraeidae | |
| Band-21 | 99 | Metazoa; Tardigrada | |
| Band-22 | 93 | Metazoa; Oxystominidae | |
| Band-23 | 97 | Botryosphaeriaceae; | |
| Band-24 | 95 | Helotiales; Helotiaceae | |
| Band-25 | Uncultured | 99 | Hypocreales; Clavicipitaccae |
Only the highest homology matches are presented
Bands are numbered according to Fig. 2
Classification represents phylum, class, order, and family to which a similar strain belongs
Fig. 3Average well color development (AWCD) development of soil microbial communities in Panax ginseng soil between different cultivation ages and modes.
Fig. 4Utilization abilities of six types of carbon sources in the BIOLOG EcoPlate by soil microbial communities in different cultivation ages and modes. 1, Miscellaneous carbohydrates; 2, amino acids; 3, carboxylic acids; 4, polymers; 5, phenolic acids; and 6, amines/amides.
Microbial diversity index of Panax ginseng soil calculated from DGGE fingerprints and BIOLOG data
| Soil samples | Analysis of microbial diversity | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Analysis by PCR-DGGE method | Analysis by BIOLOG method | ||||||||
| Bacterial diversity | Fungal diversity | Shannon index ( | Substrate evenness ( | Simpson's index ( | |||||
| Shannon index ( | Substrate evenness ( | Simpson's index ( | Shannon index ( | Substrate evenness ( | Simpson's index ( | ||||
| R0 | 3.82 ± 0.009a,b | 0.98 ± 0.001b | 0.98 ± 0.001a,b | 2.63 ± 0.009c | 0.99 ± 0.000a,b | 0.94 ± 0.001a,b | 3.06 ± 0.02c | 0.98 ± 0.004b,c | 0.927 ± 0.012b |
| R1 | 3.84 ± 0.009a | 0.97 ± 0.000d | 0.98 ± 0.000a,b | 2.27 ± 0.006e | 0.99 ± 0.000e | 0.93 ± 0.002a,b | 2.89 ± 0.02d | 0.99 ± 0.008a,b | 0.928 ± 0.002b |
| R2 | 3.80 ± 0.007b | 0.96 ± 0.000f | 0.97 ± 0.000d | 2.61 ± 0.012c | 0.99 ± 0.000c,d | 0.94 ± 0.001d | 2.92 ± 0.03d | 1.00 ± 0.012a | 0.926 ± 0.003b |
| R4 | 3.62 ± 0.015e | 0.97 ± 0.000e | 0.98 ± 0.001b | 2.68 ± 0.009b | 0.99 ± 0.001d,e | 0.94 ± 0.002b | 3.15 ± 0.01b | 0.98 ± 0.004b | 0.951 ± 0.001a |
| R2 + 2 | 3.73 ± 0.015c | 0.97 ± 0.001c | 0.97 ± 0.000c | 2.36 ± 0.006d | 0.99 ± 0.001e | 0.93 ± 0.000c | 3.21 ± 0.01a | 0.96 ± 0.003c | 0.954 ± 0.001a |
| R3 + 3 | 3.69 ± 0.009d | 0.97 ± 0.001d | 0.97 ± 0.000c | 2.37 ± 0.009d | 0.99 ± 0.001c | 0.94 ± 0.001c | 3.13 ± 0.01b | 0.98 ± 0.003b,c | 0.949 ± 0.001a |
| RL-07 | 3.68 ± 0.009d | 0.98 ± 0.000a | 0.97 ± 0.001c | 2.91 ± 0.003a | 0.10 ± 0.001a | 0.95 ± 0.001a | 3.16 ± 0.02b | 0.98 ± 0.005b,c | 0.949 ± 0.001a |
| RL-03 | 3.81 ± 0.003a,b | 0.99 ± 0.001a | 0.98 ± 0.000a | 2.92 ± 0.009b | 0.99 ± 0.001b | 0.94 ± 0.001c | 3.25 ± 0.01a | 0.97 ± 0.002b,c | 0.957 ± 0.001a |
LSR; PCR-DGGE, polymerase chain reaction and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis
The letters indicate tested with Shortest Significant ranges (SSR) at p = 0.05 of different treatments. Different letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05 level
Fig. 5Principal component analysis (PCA) of the microbial composition of Panax ginseng soil samples in different cultivation ages and modes. (A) PCA of the bacterial composition of P. ginseng soil samples by polymerase chain reaction and denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis (PCR-DGGE) analysis. (B) PCA of the fungal composition of P. ginseng soil samples by PCR-DGGE analysis. (C) PCA of the microbial composition of P. ginseng soil samples by BIOLOG analysis.