| Literature DB >> 31391094 |
Peter Kusstatscher1,2, Christin Zachow1, Karsten Harms3, Johann Maier3, Herbert Eigner4, Gabriele Berg2, Tomislav Cernava5,6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Sugar loss due to storage rot has a substantial economic impact on the sugar industry. The gradual spread of saprophytic fungi such as Fusarium and Penicillium spp. during storage in beet clamps is an ongoing challenge for postharvest processing. Early detection of shifts in microbial communities in beet clamps is a promising approach for the initiation of targeted countermeasures during developing storage rot. In a combined approach, high-throughput sequencing of bacterial and fungal genetic markers was complemented with cultivation-dependent methods and provided detailed insights into microbial communities colonizing stored roots. These data were used to develop a multi-target qPCR technique for early detection of postharvest diseases.Entities:
Keywords: Bacterial microbiome; Beta vulgaris; Fungal microbiome; Indicator species; Phytopathogens; Storage rot
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31391094 PMCID: PMC6686572 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-019-0728-0
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Fig. 1Comparison of 18S rRNA gene fragment sequencing results of fungal strains isolated from beet clamps in Austria and Germany and ITS sequencing of amplicon samples. The obtained sequences were assigned up to genus level. Color-coded segments indicate different genera in both datasets. Shaded areas represent the fraction of fungal isolates obtained from the beet endosphere
Fig. 2Alpha and beta diversity comparison of healthy and decaying sugar beet microbiome samples. The bacterial and fungal microbiome of each sample is indicated with one dot (a). Highly significant differences in the diversity were obtained from a total of 40 healthy and 80 decaying samples (b). Distances shown in the PCoA plot are based on the Bray Curtis diversity metrics
Fig. 3The core microbiome of healthy and decaying sugar beets from beet clamps in Austria and Germany. Relative abundances of prevalent bacterial (a) and fungal taxa (b) are shown. All taxa with an abundance ≥ 1% were identified on genus level if the resolution was sufficient. The grouping was conducted based on assignments at class level and taxa that were not assignable at genus level were additionally labeled: f_: family, o_: order, c_: class, p_: phylum, k_: kingdom
Fig. 4a Trophic modes in the fungal microbiome depending on sugar beet health status and b, c explained variance between samples by distinct parameters. The trophic modes were assigned according to identified core features of the samples and classifications stored in the FUNGuild database. A PERMANOVA analysis was performed by using weighted (WUF) as well as unweighted UniFrac (UUF) distance metrics
Fig. 5Relative abundance of the most abundant (≥ 5%) bacterial and fungal taxa in healthy and decaying sugar beet samples. Stored roots from six sugar beet clamps in Austria and Germany were analyzed by amplicon sequencing of the 16S rRNA gene fragment and the ITS region. The results were grouped according to the health status and the sampling site of the beets
Fig. 6Real-time qPCR analysis of bacterial and fungal indicator taxa in stored sugar beets (a) and analyzed sucrose, glucose, and fructose contents in sugar beets (b). Gene copy numbers per gram sugar beet surface showed distinct tendencies related to accumulations of health and disease indicators during three months of controlled storage (color gradient). Statistical significance between the first and last measurement was tested using the Student’s t test: p value < 0.01 **; p < 0.05 *
Sequences, annealing temperatures, fragment length, and sources of the implemented qPCR primers. The primers for Vishniacozyma and Plectospaerella were designed with deposited sequences (accession numbers provided) in the NCBI database and the Primer-BLAST tool [53]
| Taxonomic group | Forward primer | Reverse primer | Length (bp) | Annealing temp (°C) | Reference/source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| CGCATCGATGAAGAACGCAG | AAAACCCAAGTGGGGTGAGG | 151 | 64.6 | NR_073260.1, this study |
|
| ATCTCTTGGCTCCAGCATCG | GATACTGGAAGGCGCCATGT | 112 | 65 | GU724980.1, this study |
|
| TCTAACGTCTATGCGAGTG | ATACCCAAATTCGACGATCG | 244 | 59.4 | [ |
|
| CAACTCCCAAACCCCTGTGA | GCGACGATTACCAGTAACGA | 398 | 58 | [ |
|
| GCAGCAGTAGGGAATCTTCCA | GCATTYCACCGCTACACATG | 342 | 62.1 | [ |
|
| ATGAAATCCTCCCTGTGGGTTAGT | GAAGGATAATTTCCGGGGTAGTCATT | 92 | 65 | [ |