| Literature DB >> 29109926 |
Naveen Kumar Arora1, Maya Verma1.
Abstract
In this study, siderophore production by various bacteria amongst the plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria was quantified by a rapid and efficient method. In total, 23 siderophore-producing bacterial isolates/strains were taken to estimate their siderophore-producing ability by the standard method (chrome azurol sulphonate assay) as well as 96 well microplate method. Production of siderophore was estimated in percent siderophore unit by both the methods. It was observed that data obtained by both methods correlated positively with each other proving the correctness of microplate method. By the modified microplate method, siderophore production by several bacterial strains can be estimated both qualitatively and quantitatively at one go, saving time, chemicals, making it very less tedious, and also being cheaper in comparison with the method currently in use. The modified microtiter plate method as proposed here makes it far easier to screen the plant-growth-promoting character of plant-associated bacteria.Entities:
Keywords: CAS assay; Microplate; PGPR; Plate reader; Siderophore
Year: 2017 PMID: 29109926 PMCID: PMC5658296 DOI: 10.1007/s13205-017-1008-y
Source DB: PubMed Journal: 3 Biotech ISSN: 2190-5738 Impact factor: 2.406
Type of siderophores produced by plant-growth-promoting bacteria.
Modified from Saha et al. (2015)
| S. no. | Siderophore type | Characteristic functional group | Example with microbial source | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Hydroxamate | Esters or acid chlorides or carboxylic acids | Ferrioxamine B– | (Maurer et al. |
| 2 | Catecholates | Phenolate or 2,3-dihydroxy benzoate (DHB) binding groups | Enterobactin– | Dave et al. ( |
| 3 | Carboxylates | Hydroxyl carboxylate and carboxylates | Rhizobactin– | Smith and Neilands ( |
| 4 | Mixed type | Mixture of above mentioned functional groups | Pyoverdine– | Leong and Neilands ( |
Detail of bacterial strains used for siderophore production assay
| S. no. | Bacterial strains | Host plant | Collection site | Accession number (Genbank/ | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
| Rhizospheric soil | – | Mishra and Arora ( |
| 2 |
| – | Rhizospheric soil | FJ685995 | Khare and Arora ( |
| 3 |
|
| Root nodule | KY392997 | – |
| 4 |
| – | Rhizospheric soil | KT734728 | – |
| 5 |
|
| Root nodule | MF416432 | – |
| 6 |
|
| Rhizospheric region | – | Arora et al. ( |
| 7 |
|
| Plant tissue Endophyte | KT761191 | – |
| 8 |
|
| Root nodule | KY392994 | – |
| 9 |
|
| Root nodule | KY178303 | – |
| 10 |
|
| Root nodule | – | Arora et al. ( |
| 11 |
|
| Root nodule | – | Arora et al. ( |
| 12 |
| Leguminous plant | Root nodule | – | Singh et al. ( |
| 13 |
|
| Rhizospheric soil | HQ457044 | Mishra and Arora ( |
| 14 |
|
| Root nodule | KY178304 | – |
| 15 |
|
| Root nodule | KY392995 | – |
| 16 |
|
| Root nodule | KY392993 | – |
| 17 |
|
| Rhizospheric soil | FJ816019 | Khare et al. ( |
| 18 |
|
| Root nodule | MF416433 | – |
| 19 |
|
| Rhizospheric | – | Tewari and Arora ( |
| 20 |
| – | Rhizospheric soil | KF598858 | Tewari and Arora ( |
| 21 |
|
| Root nodule | MF400858 | – |
| 22 |
|
| Root nodule | KY392996 | – |
| 23 |
|
| Rhizospheric soil | KU201600 | Tewari and Arora ( |
Results of siderophore production from bacterial strains and their estimation by qualitative analysis and quantitative analysis (traditional method and modified microplate method)
| Bacterial strains | Qualitative analysis | Quantitative analysis | % increase in absorbance by microplate method | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Traditional method (psu) | Microplate method (psu) | |||
| Control | 1.12 ± 0.01 | 1.12 ± 0.01 | 0.00 | |
| KA19 | +++ | 69.16 ± 0.71 | 69.81 ± 0.16 | 0.93 |
| TO3 | ++ | 41.45 ± 0.44 | 43.26 ± 0.06 | 4.18 |
| LN | ++ | 40.44 ± 0.59 | 41.44 ± 0.09 | 2.41 |
| JM1 | + | 24.99 ± 0.60 | 25.50 ± 0.14 | 2.00 |
| CV5 | + | 35.51 ± 0.53 | 35.77 ± 0.04 | 0.72 |
| NDN1 | + | 36.64 ± 0.73 | 37.35 ± 0.12 | 1.90 |
| RB1 | ++ | 44.43 ± 0.33 | 44.44 ± 0.16 | 0.02 |
| ClU1 | ++ | 30.39 ± 0.18 | 30.64 ± 0.10 | 0.81 |
| ClU2 | + | 21.46 ± 0.52 | 21.90 ± 0.15 | 2.00 |
| RMP3 | + | 24.12 ± 0.62 | 24.49 ± 0.07 | 1.51 |
| RMP5 | ++ | 41.12 ± 0.42 | 41.35 ± 0.05 | 0.55 |
| RASH6 | + | 14.13 ± 0.24 | 14.67 ± 0.04 | 3.68 |
| TO7 | + | 22.58 ± 0.60 | 23.50 ± 0.15 | 3.91 |
| CV2 | + | 27.82 ± 0.52 | 27.90 ± 0.14 | 0.06 |
| LM | + | 12.63 ± 0.15 | 13.01 ± 0.01 | 2.92 |
| AB3 | + | 33.34 ± 0.03 | 33.61 ± 0.03 | 0.80 |
| EKi | ++ | 47.19 ± 0.72 | 47.43 ± 0.18 | 0.50 |
| CGJ | + | 32.55 ± 0.47 | 33.06 ± 0.15 | 1.54 |
| PF07 | + | 27.62 ± 0.37 | 27.71 ± 0.07 | 0.32 |
| PF23 | ++ | 45.99 ± 0.59 | 46.33 ± 0.09 | 0.73 |
| AB1 | + | 07.97 ± 0.58 | 08.33 ± 0.08 | 4.32 |
| LB2 | ++ | 45.12 ± 0.05 | 45.64 ± 0.04 | 1.13 |
| PF17 | ++ | 48.42 ± 0.26 | 49.54 ± 0.13 | 2.26 |
Data are represented by the mean of four replicates ± standard deviation, (+++), high production; (++), medium production; (+), low production
Comparative analysis between traditional and microplate methods of siderophore estimation
| Comparative analysis | Methods | |
|---|---|---|
| Traditional method | Microplate method | |
| Labour | Requires high labour input | Requires less labour input |
| Media | 96 ml | 48 ml |
| Reagent | 48 ml | 9.6 ml |
| Accuracy | Less accurate because several samples are handled individually which may cause high handling error | More accurate because several samples (96) can be handled collectively in only one plate which reduces the handling error |
| Time | 180 min (3 h) | 15 min |
Fig. 1Estimation of siderophore production by microplate method. Diverse bacterial strains producing different amounts of siderophore
Fig. 2Correlation between results of siderophore production by two methods: (i) Traditional method = X value and (ii) Microplate method = Y value