| Literature DB >> 28931073 |
Ou Li1, Rong Xiao1, Lihua Sun2, Chenglin Guan1, Dedong Kong3, Xiufang Hu1.
Abstract
As an epiphyte orchid, Dendrobium catenatum relies on microorganisms for requisite nutrients. Metagenome pyrosequencing based on 16S rRNA and nifH genes was used to characterize the bacterial and diazotrophic communities associated with D. catenatum collected from 5 districts in China. Based on Meta-16S rRNA sequencing, 22 bacterial phyla and 699 genera were identified, distributed as 125 genera from 8 phyla and 319 genera from 10 phyla shared by all the planting bases and all the tissues, respectively. The predominant Proteobacteria varied from 71.81% (GZ) to 96.08% (YN), and Delftia (10.39-38.42%), Burkholderia (2.71-15.98%), Escherichia/Shigella (4.90-25.12%), Pseudomonas (2.68-30.72%) and Sphingomonas (1.83-2.05%) dominated in four planting bases. Pseudomonas (17.94-22.06%), Escherichia/Shigella (6.59-11.59%), Delftia (9.65-22.14%) and Burkholderia (3.12-11.05%) dominated in all the tissues. According to Meta-nifH sequencing, 4 phyla and 45 genera were identified, while 17 genera and 24 genera from 4 phyla were shared by all the planting bases and all the tissues, respectively. Burkholderia and Bradyrhizobium were the most popular in the planting bases, followed by Methylovirgula and Mesorhizobium. Mesorhizobium was the most popular in different tissues, followed by Beijerinckia, Xanthobacter, and Burkholderia. Among the genera, 39 were completely overlapped with the results based on the 16S rRNA gene. In conclusion, abundant bacteria and diazotrophs were identified in common in different tissues of D. catenatum from five planting bases, which might play a great role in the supply of nutrients such as nitrogen. The exact abundance of phylum and genus on the different tissues from different planting bases need deeper sequencing with more samples.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28931073 PMCID: PMC5607135 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0184717
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Location of five geographically distributed planting bases of D. catenatum.
| Sample | Province | City | Latitude | Longitude |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhejiang | Jinhua | 28°90’ N | 120°03’ E | |
| Guizhou | Guiyang | 26°35’ N | 104°50’ E | |
| Fujian | Quanzhou | 24°54’ N | 118°37’ E | |
| Yunnan | Mangshi | 24°22’ N | 98°31’ E | |
| Guangxi | Rongxian | 22°36’ N | 110°47’ E |
Fig 1The unweighted heatmap based on 16S rRNA (a) and nifH (b) communities.
Diversity indices of the D. catenatum samples.
| Sample_ID | Seq_num | OTU_num | Shannon_index | ACE_index | Chao1_index | Coverage |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ZJR | 9201 | 2809 | 6.489119 | 17212.28 | 9045.055 | 0.780459 |
| ZJS | 7582 | 1382 | 4.334109 | 4686.824 | 3010.457 | 0.885782 |
| ZJL | 8466 | 1117 | 3.629259 | 4235.37 | 2642.424 | 0.916135 |
| FJR | 9698 | 1637 | 5.420732 | 6494.123 | 3826.961 | 0.89668 |
| FJS | 8599 | 1415 | 4.84392 | 6659.969 | 3805.294 | 0.889987 |
| FJL | 9415 | 2115 | 5.042184 | 9422.082 | 5883.846 | 0.847584 |
| GXR | 9453 | 1149 | 4.356798 | 4479.672 | 2575.017 | 0.924786 |
| GXS | 9781 | 1295 | 4.320648 | 4760.654 | 2917.015 | 0.916777 |
| GXL | 9685 | 3023 | 6.120562 | 22514.13 | 10996.37 | 0.76634 |
| YNR | 8196 | 819 | 4.620535 | 3242.374 | 2049.062 | 0.940337 |
| YNS | 8673 | 643 | 3.654305 | 2174.8 | 1483.373 | 0.956878 |
| YNL | 8625 | 597 | 2.710412 | 2044.082 | 1495.162 | 0.95942 |
| GZR | 10252 | 2261 | 4.638355 | 12487.28 | 6573.458 | 0.843835 |
| GZS | 11518 | 2785 | 5.898415 | 13599.43 | 7904.747 | 0.835128 |
| GZL | 12052 | 2012 | 4.905339 | 9805.819 | 5872.156 | 0.886077 |
Fig 2The phylum levels (A) and genus levels (B) of species composition of five planting bases samples.
Bacterial genera with relative abundance >1%.
| Item | Root | Stem | Leaf | ZJ | FJ | GX | YN | GZ |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 22.06% | 20.19% | 17.94% | 5.47% | 30.27% | 10.29% | 57.45% | 2.68% | |
| 9.65% | 17.83% | 22.14% | 38.42% | 16.91% | 16.69% | 2.72% | 10.39% | |
| 11.59% | 6.69% | 10.05% | 5.35% | 7.35% | 4.90% | 0.24% | 25.12% | |
| 5.87% | 11.05% | 3.12% | 6.43% | 7.21% | 15.98% | 0.76% | 2.71% | |
| 0.28% | 1.81% | 11.22% | 0.41% | 0.74% | 1.06% | 0.04% | 17.02% | |
| 1.50% | 6.05% | 0.51% | 0.30% | 0.80% | 9.29% | 2.69% | 0.21% | |
| 2.21% | 0.79% | 1.90% | 2.05% | 2.00% | 1.96% | 0.23% | 1.83% | |
| 3.60% | 0.91% | 0.25% | 0.09% | 0.31% | 6.58% | 0.35% | 0.38% | |
| 3.65% | 0.16% | 0.61% | 0.17% | 0.79% | 0.08% | 6.88% | 0.12% | |
| 0.56% | 0.77% | 2.30% | 3.53% | 0.89% | 0.88% | 0.07% | 0.92% | |
| 0.03% | 0.02% | 3.23% | 0.04% | 3.09% | 2.42% | 0.01% | 0.05% | |
| 1.54% | 0.69% | 0.92% | 1.43% | 0.43% | 0.49% | 2.68% | 0.52% | |
| 0.10% | 2.74% | 0.11% | 0.05% | 0.14% | 0.11% | 4.82% | 0.14% | |
| 1.83% | 0.12% | 0.19% | 0.17% | 0.07% | 0.04% | 3.49% | 0.12% | |
| 0.34% | 2.02% | 0.09% | 0.03% | 1.69% | 1.70% | 0.47% | 0.12% | |
| 0.16% | 1.89% | 0.11% | 0.52% | 2.86% | 0.02% | 0.22% | 0.04% | |
| 0.01% | 1.80% | 0.04% | 0.07% | 0.06% | 0.01% | 0.004% | 2.42% | |
| 0.70% | 0.72% | 1.23% | 0.39% | 0.35% | 0.35% | 1.43% | 1.77% | |
| 0.44% | 0.71% | 1.05% | 0.48% | 0.41% | 1.30% | 0.05% | 1.24% | |
| 0.17% | 0.05% | 1.69% | 0.18% | 0.15% | 0.05% | 0 | 2.41% | |
| 0.64% | 0.25% | 0.13% | 1.14% | 0.17% | 0.41% | 0.05% | 0.04% | |
| 0.98% | 0.10% | 0.25% | 1.12% | 0.74% | 0.18% | 0.02% | 0.24% | |
| 0.61% | 0.55% | 0.10% | 1.03% | 0.09% | 0.05% | 1.05% | 0.06% | |
| 0.70% | 0.33% | 0.34% | 0.04% | 0.51% | 1.54% | 0.06% | 0.09% | |
| 0.37% | 0.63% | 0.05% | 0.44% | 0.09% | 0.22% | 1.02% | 0.09% | |
| 0.60% | 0.13% | 0.19% | 0.19% | 0.17% | 0.04% | 1.21% | 0.06% | |
| 0.33% | 0.77% | 0.15% | 0.06% | 0.09% | 0.25% | 1.63% | 0.17% | |
| 0.57% | 0.25% | 0.05% | 0.03% | 0.03% | 0.02% | 1.42% | 0.06% | |
| 0.40% | 0.16% | 0.03% | 0.02% | 0.03% | 0.01% | 1.01% | 0.01% |
Fig 3The genus level (meta-nifH) of species composition of samples from five planting bases.
Fig 4Venn diagram (A) and bar chart (B) for the genus levels of species composition of three tissue samples.
Fig 5Venn diagram of genus level of species diversity comparison between 16S rDNA and nifH methods.