| Literature DB >> 31396184 |
Yong-Wei Yan1, Hui-Chao Yang1,2, Lei Tang3,4, Jie Li1, Yun-Xiang Mao3,4, Zhao-Lan Mo1,2.
Abstract
Pyropia yezoensis is commercially the most important edible red alga in China, and red rot disease is viewed as one of the major constraints for its cultivation. Microbes within the oomycetic genus Pythium have been reported as the causative agents for this disease; however, little is known about the interactions between the disease and the epiphytic and planktonic bacterial communities. In the present study, bacterial communities associated with uninfected, locally infected, and seriously infected thalli collected from cultivation farms, and within seawater adjacent to the thalli, were investigated using in-depth 16S ribosomal RNA (rRNA) gene sequencing in conjunction with assessing multiple environmental factors. For both thalli and seawater, uninfected and infected communities were significantly different though alpha diversity was similar. Phylogenetic differences between epiphytic bacterial communities associated with P. yezoensis were mainly reflected by the relative changes in the dominant operational taxonomic units (OTUs) assigned as genus Flavirhabdus, genus Sulfitobacter, and family Rhodobacteraceae. The prevalent OTUs in seawater also differed in relative abundance across the communities and were affiliated with diverse taxa, including the phyla Actinobacteria, Verrucomicrobia, and Bacteroidetes, and the classes Alpha- and Gamma-proteobacteria. The differentiation of bacterial communities associated with P. yezoensis and seawater was primarily shaped by reactive silicate (RS) content and salinity, respectively. In particular, 14 potential indicators (two OTUs on P. yezoensis and twelve OTUs in seawater) were identified that significantly differentiated P. yezoensis health statuses and correlated with environmental changes. Overall, the present study provides insights into the alterations of bacterial communities associated with P. yezoensis and surrounding seawater co-occurring with red rot disease. Observed changes were closely associated with health status of algal host, and highlight the potential of using community differentiation to forecast disease occurrence.Entities:
Keywords: Pyropia yezoensis; bacterial communities; compositional shifts; potential indicator; red rot disease; seawater
Year: 2019 PMID: 31396184 PMCID: PMC6664831 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2019.01666
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
FIGURE 1Comparison of different health-status Pyropia yezoensis thalli collected from three regions in the cultivation farms (A) and enlarged images of the thalli infected with Pythium chondricola (B,C). The red rot section in the thallus is indicated by the arrowhead.
Summary of the seawater sample physico-chemical parameters for the H and D regions.
| Temperature (°C) | 3.83 ± 0.06 | 3.83 ± 0.06 | 0.500 |
| Dissolved oxygen (%) | 125.80 ± 6.63 | 131.80 ± 11.46 | 0.245 |
| pH | 8.21 ± 0.01 | 8.20 ± 0.09 | 0.406 |
| Salinity (‰) | 27.04 ± 0.04 | 26.37 ± 0.06 | |
| Reactive silicate (μmol/L) | 7.94 ± 1.21 | 1.66 ± 0.51 | |
| Phosphate (μmol/L) | 0.25 ± 0.02 | 0.25 ± 0.03 | 0.500 |
| Nitrite (μmol/L) | 2.85 ± 0.16 | 2.80 ± 0.04 | 0.322 |
| Nitrate (μmol/L) | 25.20 ± 2.99 | 22.80 ± 3.33 | 0.203 |
| Ammonium (μmol/L) | 0.76 ± 0.52 | 0.43 ± 0.51 | 0.241 |
FIGURE 2Comparisons of diversity indices for Pyropia yezoensis-associated (A) and seawater-borne (B) bacterial communities between different health statuses. Error bars indicate standard deviations, and the letters on the error bars indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) based on unpaired wilcoxon rank sum tests.
FIGURE 3Relationships between individual datasets illustrated by non-metric multi-dimensional scaling (NMDS) ordination. (A) Pyropia yezoensis-associated community datasets. (B) Seawater-associated community datasets.
Significance tests of the differences in Pyropia yezoensis- and seawater-associated bacterial community structures, respectively on the basis of Bray-Curtis dissimilarities.
| H vs. D vs. DW ( | 0.646 | 0.670 | 0.347 | |||
| H vs. D vs. DW (Seawater) | 1.000 | 0.788 | 0.444 | |||
FIGURE 4Bacterial community structures associated with Pyropia yezoensis and seawater at the phylum/class level. H, uninfected; D, locally infected; DW, seriously infected.
FIGURE 5Screened health-status related bacterial OTUs and the comparisons of their relative abundance across the three groups. (A) Screened bacterial OTUs associated with Pyropia yezoensis. (B) Screened bacterial OTUs associated with seawater. White, gray, and black bars represent relative abundances of bacterial OTUs in the H, D, and DW datasets, respectively. The error bars indicate standard deviations, and the letters on the error bars indicate significant differences (P < 0.05) based on unpaired wilcoxon rank sum tests.
FIGURE 6Biplots of redundancy analysis (RDA) for bacterial communities and environmental parameters. Community datasets associated with Pyropia yezoensis (A) and seawater (B) were used. Temp, temperature; DO, dissolved oxygen; RS, reactive silicate.
Pearson’s correlation coefficients between health-status related bacterial taxa and environmental parameters.
| OTU5 Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodobacterales; Rhodobacteraceae | 0.79 | 0.060 | 0.88 | |
| OTU10 Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodobacterales; Rhodobacteraceae; Loktanella | 0.70 | 0.125 | 0.73 | 0.097 |
| OTU58 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Flavobacteriales; Flavobacteriaceae | 0.69 | 0.132 | 0.77 | 0.074 |
| OTU6 Gammaproteobacteria; Pseudomonadales; Moraxellaceae; Psychrobacter | –0.99 | –0.97 | ||
| OTU7 Alphaproteobacteria; Rhodobacterales; Rhodobacteraceae; Sulfitobacter | –0.91 | –0.88 | ||
| OTU8 Verrucomicrobia; Verrucomicrobiae; Opitutales; Puniceicoccaceae; Lentimonas | 0.98 | 0.95 | ||
| OTU9 Alphaproteobacteria; SAR11 clade; Clade I; Clade Ia | 0.92 | 0.87 | ||
| OTU2 Gammaproteobacteria; Cellvibrionales; Porticoccaceae; SAR92 clade | 0.92 | 0.89 | ||
| OTU12 Gammaproteobacteria; Betaproteobacteriales; Methylophilaceae; OM43 clade | 0.99 | 0.97 | ||
| OTU13 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Chitinophagales; Saprospiraceae; Uncultured | 0.92 | 0.95 | ||
| OTU11 Gammaproteobacteria; Alteromonadales; Alteromonadaceae; Glaciecola | 0.79 | 0.060 | 0.71 | 0.115 |
| OTU22 Gammaproteobacteria; OM182 clade | 0.91 | 0.86 | ||
| OTU18 Gammaproteobacteria; SAR86 clade | 0.95 | 0.90 | ||
| Otu24 Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Micrococcales; Microbacteriaceae; ML602J-51 | –0.98 | –0.96 | ||
| OTU34 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Flavobacteriales; Flavobacteriaceae | –0.80 | 0.057 | –0.78 | 0.066 |
| OTU14 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Sphingobacteriales; NS11-12 marine group | –0.96 | –0.91 | ||
| Otu31 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Flavobacteriales; Flavobacteriaceae | –0.79 | 0.063 | –0.70 | 0.120 |
| OTU21 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Flavobacteriales; Flavobacteriaceae | –0.87 | –0.96 | ||
| OTU10 Bacteroidetes; Bacteroidia; Flavobacteriales; Flavobacteriaceae; NS3a marine group | –0.94 | –0.89 | ||
| OTU1 Actinobacteria; Actinobacteria; Micrococcales; Microbacteriaceae; Candidatus Aquiluna | –1.00 | –0.99 | ||