| Literature DB >> 31043618 |
Eduardo Pérez-Valera1, Martina Kyselková2, Engy Ahmed2, Frantisek Xaver Jiri Sladecek3,4, Marta Goberna5, Dana Elhottová2.
Abstract
Bacterial genes responsible for resistance to antibiotic agents (Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31043618 PMCID: PMC6494816 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-019-42734-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Schematic representation of the microcosm experiment. Each microcosm contained 3 layers (upper layer: 1 cm, middle layer (interlayer): 0.7 cm and bottom layer: 3 cm), the interlayer being separated from the top and bottom layers in all treatments with a sterile plastic net (dashed line). The top layer was established with either native soil (treatments A,B) or fresh manure (treatments C,D). The interlayer (A,C) and the bottom layer (A,B and C) were established with either native soil or γ-irradiated soil (D). The interlayer (B) was established with native soil amended with N-P-K. The expected interactions in the studied interlayer from three soils (S, B and M) are indicated as hypotheses. See the main text for further details.
Figure 2Boxplot of TET-r gene content (log copies per g−1 dry soil) in total DNA from the interlayer at 7 (T7) and 84 days (T84). Medians, upper and lower quartiles (boxes) and standard deviations (whiskers) were obtained from three soils, each measured in four technical replicates. Treatments are indicated as follows: control soil (A, white), soil + nutrients (B, green), manure + soil (C, red) and manure + γ-irradiated soil (D, yellow). Asterisks indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between individual treatments and the control soil. Background levels of TET-r genes in A and B treatments were always below the limit of detection (LOD) and therefore, replaced by the corresponding LOD values. Differences between treatments C and D were significant for tet(Q) and tet(Y) in both time points.
Efficiency (in percentage) of gene enrichment in soil following manure application per treatment and time point, calculated as the ratio between the abundance of TET-r genes in treatments C and D, and fresh manure.
| Time | Treatment | Genes | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| tet(M) | tet(W) | tet(Q) | tet(Y) | traN | ||
| 7 days | C | 81 | 65 | 60 | 104 | 106 |
| D | 90 | 73 | 69 | 114 | 106 | |
| 84 days | C | 79 | 67 | 52 | 95 | 86 |
| D | 80 | 66 | 60 | 101 | 86 | |
Figure 3Maximum-likelihood molecular phylogenetic tree of TET-resistant bacterial strains isolated from three soils (S, B and M) under different treatments at 7 days. Treatments are indicated as follows: control soil (A), soil + nutrients (B), soil + manure (C) and γ-irradiated soil + manure (D). Colour intensity indicates the number of isolates.
Figure 4DCCA ordination diagram of TET-resistant subcommunities from the S soil. The time × treatment combinations are represented by red circles (open circles for T7 and filled circles for T84). Bacterial OTUs with the highest relative weight in the analysis (n = 10, see the main text for further details) are shown as black stars. OTUs are labelled according to their genus classification (UNK = unknown organism).
Figure 5DCCA ordination diagram of total bacterial communities from the S soil. The time × treatment combinations are represented by red circles (open circles for T7 and filled circles for T84). Bacterial OTUs with the highest relative weight in the analysis (n = 10, see the main text for further details) are shown as black stars. OTUs are labelled according to their genus classification (UNK = unknown organism).