| Literature DB >> 27490955 |
Josefa Blaya1, Frutos C Marhuenda2, Jose A Pascual1, Margarita Ros1.
Abstract
<span class="Species">Phytophthora root rot caused by <span class="Species">Phytophthora nicotianae is an economically important disease in pepper crops. The use of suppressive composts is a low environmental impact method for its control. Although attempts have been made to reveal the relationship between microbiota and compost suppressiveness, little is known about the microorganisms associated with disease suppression. Here, an Ion Torrent platform was used to assess the microbial composition of composts made of different agro-industrial waste and with different levels of suppressiveness against P. nicotianae. Both bacterial and fungal populations responded differently depending on the chemical heterogeneity of materials used during the composting process. High proportions (67-75%) of vineyard pruning waste were used in the most suppressive composts, COM-A and COM-B. This material may have promoted the presence of higher relative abundance of Ascomycota as well as higher microbial activity, which have proved to be essential for controlling the disease. Although no unique fungi or bacteria have been detected in neither suppressive nor conducive composts, relatively high abundance of Fusarium and Zopfiella were found in compost COM-B and COM-A, respectively. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first work that studies compost metabolome. Surprisingly, composts and peat clustered together in principal component analysis of the metabolic data according to their levels of suppressiveness achieved. This study demonstrated the need for combining the information provided by different techniques, including metagenomics and metametabolomics, to better understand the ability of compost to control plant diseases.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27490955 PMCID: PMC4973912 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0158048
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Physical-chemical and biological properties of composts and peat.
| COM-A | COM-B | COM-C | COM-D | Peat | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| pH | 8.5 c | 8.9d | 8.8d | 6.2b | 5.5a |
| EC | 1.9ab | 2.6c | 1.8a | 3.8d | 2.0b |
| Total organic C (g kg-1) | 433d | 316b | 374c | 273a | 480e |
| Total N (g kg-1) | 25d | 22b | 29e | 24c | 13a |
| P (g kg-1) | 3.7b | 4.0c | 4.0c | 5.6d | 0.3a |
| K (g kg-1) | 24d | 28e | 18c | 16.6b | 0.6a |
| Dehydrogenase activity (mg INT g-1) | 27.2d | 37.0e | 9.4c | 3.2b | 0.32a |
aEC, electrical conductivity.
Data are mean of three replicates. For each parameter, data followed by the same letter are not significantly different according to Tukey’s post hoc test (p≤0.05).
Fig 1Disease incidence in pepper seedlings artificially inoculated with P. nicotianae.
Fig 2Chemical composition of the composts and peat revealed by 13C NMR.
(A) Distribution of organic carbon functional groups: 0–45 ppm (aliphatic groups); 45–60 ppm (methoxy groups), 60–110 ppm (carbohydrate groups); 110–160 ppm (aromatic C structures), and 160–210 ppm (carboxyl and ester group). (B) Alkyl/O-alkyl ratio values.
Fig 3Principal component analysis according to the metabolome obtained from the composts COM-A (green balls), COM-B (pink balls), COM-C (red balls), COM-D (yellow balls), and peat (blue balls), n = 6.
Fig 4A heat map illustrating the 54 metabolites that differ among the composts and peat.
Colors indicate relative quantity of each metabolite.
Fig 5Relative abundances of the fungal orders identified in the composts and peat.
Most abundant fungal genera identified (>1% relative abundance) in the composts and peat.
| Phylum | Genus | COM-A | COM-B | COM-C | COM-D | Peat |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ascomycota | 0.02 | 0.01 | 1.12 | 0.73 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.23 | 0.01 | 2.72 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.76 | 1.50 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.28 | 0.44 | 1.58 | 0.03 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 1.29 | 0.09 | 0.16 | 2.64 | 0.02 | |
| Ascomycota | 4.40 | 20.2 | 3.32 | 0.30 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.75 | 0.24 | 12.81 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.03 | 8.64 | |
| Ascomycota | 1.68 | 9.12 | 0.44 | 0.05 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | Hypocrea | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.83 |
| Ascomycota | 0.01 | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.54 | 2.16 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.01 | 3.37 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.18 | 9.87 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.06 | 2.42 | 1.35 | 0.71 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.00 | 0.00 | 1.88 | 2.30 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 0.08 | 0.01 | 4.38 | 1.10 | 0.00 | |
| Ascomycota | 14.7 | 0.16 | 8.87 | 0.01 | 0.06 | |
| Basidiomycota | 0.01 | 5.41 | 1.97 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Basidiomycota | 0.09 | 0.00 | 2.22 | 2.62 | 0.00 |
Fig 6Relative abundances of the bacterial phyla and sub-phyla identified in the composts and peat.
Most abundant bacteria genera identified (>1% relative abundance) in the composts and peat.
| Class | Order | Family | Genus | COM-A | COM-B | COM-C | COM-D | PEAT |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Microbacteriaceae | 1.10 | 1.08 | 0.23 | 0.20 | 0.00 | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Microbacteriaceae | 3.81 | 2.72 | 2.23 | 0.15 | 0.03 | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Mycobacteriaceae | 0.53 | 0.51 | 0.40 | 0.48 | 2.86 | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Streptomycetaceae | 3.63 | 5.11 | 2.23 | 2.72 | 6.38 | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Streptosporangiaceae | 0.05 | 0.27 | 1.15 | 3.02 | 0.01 | |
| Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Thermomonosporaceae | 0.06 | 0.38 | 0.93 | 1.70 | 0.84 | |
| Flavobacteriia | Flavobacteriales | Flavobacteriaceae | 0.00 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 1.75 | 0.00 | |
| Sphingobacteriia | Sphingobacteriales | Sphingobacteriaceae | 1.17 | 0.13 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Sphingobacteriia | Sphingobacteriales | Sphingobacteriaceae | 1.05 | 0.11 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | |
| Bacilli | Bacillales | Bacillaceae | 1.87 | 0.58 | 1.45 | 0.56 | 0.00 | |
| Bacilli | Bacillales | Planococcaceae | 1.62 | 0.20 | 0.84 | 0.74 | 0.00 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | 4.43 | 0.63 | 0.62 | 2.28 | 1.04 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | 1.19 | 0.41 | 1.20 | 1.75 | 0.04 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | 1.86 | 1.25 | 0.92 | 0.90 | 0.02 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | 2.51 | 1.97 | 1.66 | 4.16 | 5.83 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Phyllobacteriaceae | 2.30 | 1.19 | 0.32 | 2.17 | 0.62 | |
| Alphaproteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Rhizobiaceae | 1.74 | 0.07 | 0.01 | 0.03 | 0.02 | |
| Gammaproteobacteria | Xanthomonadales | Xanthomonadaceae | 0.10 | 0.03 | 0.04 | 0.21 | 2.52 | |
| Gammaproteobacteria | Xanthomonadales | Xanthomonadaceae | 1.94 | 0.44 | 0.19 | 0.04 | 0.00 |