| Literature DB >> 28336973 |
Rui Wang1, Hongchun Zhang1, Liguang Sun1, Gaofu Qi1, Shu Chen1, Xiuyun Zhao2.
Abstract
Soil microbes play important roles in plant growth and health. Little is known about the differences of soil microbes between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils with Ralstonia solanacearum. By Illumina-MiSeq sequencing of 16S rREntities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28336973 PMCID: PMC5428506 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-017-00472-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Soil biological properties.
| Time | Catalase (ml/g) | Invertase (mg/g) | Urease (mg/g) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | |
|
| 2.36 ± 0.14 A | 1.25 ± 0.14 B | 41.80 ± 0.94 a | 37.44 ± 1.34 b | 0.19 ± 0.01 A | 0.29 ± 0.01 B |
|
| 2.19 ± 0.18 A | 0.85 ± 0.14 B | 53.40 ± 6.44 A | 24.51 ± 7.68 B | 0.23 ± 0.01 A | 0.17 ± 0.02 B |
|
| 1.78 ± 0.28 A | 0.67 ± 0.07 B | 35.64 ± 5.74 A | 5.79 ± 1.01 B | 0.35 ± 0.03 A | 0.18 ± 0.01 B |
|
| 2.06 ± 0.28 A | 0.68 ± 0.09 B | 76.70 ± 6.48 A | 23.86 ± 2.48 B | 0.31 ± 0.03 A | 0.21 ± 0.01 B |
All data are presented as the mean ± SE. Different capital letters and lowercase letters in the same line indicate very significant (p < 0.01) and significant (p < 0.05) difference between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils, respectively.
Soil chemical properties.
| Time | AN (mg/Kg) | pH | AP (mg/Kg) | AK (mg/Kg) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | |
|
| 146.57 ± 2.58 a | 152.62 ± 5.28 a | 6.2 ± 0.1 a | 5.8 ± 0.1 a | 33.61 ± 1.16 A | 26.04 ± 0.23 B | 275.00 ± 0 a | 265.0 ± 0 a |
|
| 155.46 ± 2.35 a | 159.59 ± 2.32 a | 5.28 ± 0.09 a | 4.94 ± 0.12 b | 80.43 ± 7.88 A | 38.99 ± 3.89 B | 1547.04 ± 151.32 A | 794.36 ± 61.59 B |
|
| 158.50 ± 4.07 A | 173.23 ± 2.38 B | 5.08 ± 0.27 a | 4.52 ± 0.12 b | 86.86 ± 4.03 A | 45.11 ± 4.85 B | 1399.19 ± 90.91 A | 848.12 ± 34.92 B |
|
| 153.21 ± 6.62 a | 168.78 ± 3.97 b | 5.48 ± 0.26 A | 4.67 ± 0.04 B | 75.37 ± 4.04 A | 32.14 ± 4.37 B | 1163.98 ± 114.64 A | 639.79 ± 64.81 B |
All data are presented as the mean ± SE. AK: available potassium content; AN: available nitrogen content, AP: available phosphorous content. Different capital letters and lowercase letters in the same line indicate very significant (p < 0.01) and significant (p < 0.05) difference between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils, respectively.
Disease incidence of tobacco bacterial wilt.
| Time | Disease index | Disease incidence (%) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | Healthy soils | Bacterial wilt infected soils | |
| 30 d | 0 | 0.27 ± 0.02** | 0 | 2.4 ± 0.46** |
| 60 d | 0 | 16.54 ± 0.77** | 0 | 42.22 ± 0.91** |
| 90 d | 0 | 93.82 ± 0.52** | 0 | 100 ± 0** |
**Significant at p < 0.01 level.
Number of OTUs and alpha diversity of bacteria.
| Sample | Times | Number of OTUs | Chao 1 | Shannon index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy soils | 0 d | 6611 | 8026 | 7.96 |
| 30 d | 6202 | 6993 | 7.70 | |
| 60 d | 5291 | 6197 | 7.38 | |
| 90 d | 5915 | 7426 | 7.57 | |
| Bacterial wilt infected soils | 0 d | 6513 | 7394 | 7.40 |
| 30 d | 4244 | 4937 | 6.72 | |
| 60 d | 3538 | 4822 | 6.85 | |
| 90 d | 5366 | 7346 | 7.34 |
Figure 1Temporal trends of different bacterial phyla in healthy soils (a) and bacterial wilt infected soils (b) during the different tobacco growth stages.
Figure 2Comparison of abundance of different soil bacterial genera and bacterial community between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils. (a) and (b) Abundances of different soil bacterial genera were compared between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils; (c) Relative abundance and hierarchical cluster analysis of bacterial genera; (d) PCoA analysis of soil bacterial community. H: healthy soils; D: bacterial wilt infected soils. Bars with asterisk (*) and double asterisks (**) indicate significant (p < 0.05) and very significant (p < 0.01) difference between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils, respectively.
Figure 3Soil fungal diversity and community structure. Temporal trends of different fungal phyla in healthy soils (a) and bacterial wilt infected soils (b) during different tobacco growth stages; (c) Abundance of different fungal genera were compared between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils. Bars with asterisk (*) and double asterisks (**) indicate significant (p < 0.05) and very significant (p < 0.01) difference between healthy and bacterial wilt infected soils, respectively; (d) PCoA analysis of soil fungal community. H: healthy soils; D: bacterial wilt infected soils.
Number of OTUs and alpha diversity of fungi.
| Sample | Times | Number of OTUs | Chao 1 | Shannon index |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Healthy soils | 0 d | 999 | 3209 | 4.4 |
| 30 d | 553 | 1986 | 4.3 | |
| 60 d | 879 | 3149 | 4.4 | |
| 90 d | 659 | 1672 | 4.1 | |
| Bacterial wilt infected soils | 0 d | 671 | 1786 | 3.7 |
| 30 d | 414 | 1065 | 3.3 | |
| 60 d | 537 | 1655 | 2.7 | |
| 90 d | 601 | 1665 | 3.5 |
Figure 4Canonical correspondence analysis of the relationship between microbial community structure and soil properties. (a) soil bacterial community; (b) soil fungal community. The soil properties are indicated with arrows, including soil pH, invertase, catalase, soil organic matter (SOM), available potassium (AK), nitrogen (AN), and phosphorous (AP) content. H: healthy soils; D: Bacterial wilt infected soils. The percentage of variation is explained by each axis.