Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes.

A total of fifteen potential methyl t-butyl ether (MtBE)-degrading bacterial strains were isolated from contaminated soil. They have been identified as belonging to the genera Bacillus, Pseudomonas, Kocuria, Janibacter, Starkeya, Bosea, Mycolicibacterium, and Rhodovarius. Bacillus aryabhattai R1B, S. novella R8b, and M. mucogenicum R8i were able to grow using MtBE as carbon source, exhibiting different growth behavior and contaminant degradation ability. Their biocontrol ability was tested against various fungal pathogens. Both S. novella R8b and B. aryabhattai were effective in reducing the development of necrotic areas on leaves within 48 hours from Botritys cinerea and Alternaria alternata inoculation. Whereas, M. mucogenicum effectively controlled B. cinerea after 72 hours. Similar results were achieved using Pythium ultimum, in which the application of isolated bacteria increased seed germination. Only M. mucogenicum elicited tomato plants resistance against B. cinerea. This is the first report describing the occurrence of bioremediation and biocontrol activities in M. mucogenicum, B. aryabhattai and S. novella species. The production of maculosin and its antibiotic activity against Rhizoctonia solani has been reported for first time from S. novella. Our results highlight the importance of multidisciplinary approaches to achieve a consistent selection of bacterial strains useful for plant protection and bioremediation purposes.

Introduction

Methyl tertiary-butyl ether (MtBE) is widely used as an oxygenated additive to increase the octane number and the combustion efficiency of gasoline for reducing emissions of carbon monoxide and volatile organic carbon [1,2]. This chemical compound is commonly utilized for about 80% of motor vehicle fuels in the USA (10–15%) and in Europe (1–10%). Due to its high solubility (49 g L-1), low organic carbon partition coefficient Koc (11 mg L-1) and poor natural degradation, MtBE is highly persistent in the environment [3]. Therefore, MtBE is considered a serious environmental problem for the contamination of soil, surface water and groundwater [4,5]. Also, MtBE is a known animal carcinogen and a potential human carcinogen and genotoxin [4,6]. The development of technologies to treat MtBE-contaminated soil is of great importance worldwide. Different remediation technologies, such as soil flushing, soil washing, air stripping, adsorption, oxidation, phytoremediation, biodegradation processes and much more have been proposed [4,7]. Among these strategies, biodegradation processes are recognized as innovative, cost-effective and environmentally friendly options for the detoxification of MtBE-contaminated soil [4,7,8]. Some microorganisms can partially or completely degrade MtBE under aerobic or anaerobic conditions [9,10,11,12]. Hydrocarbon substrates in general are known to be selectively degraded by specific micro-organisms, consequently the use of microbial consortia can provide a broader spectrum of enzymes through co-metabolism [13]. A single microbial population can convert a compound into a metabolite that can be then degraded further by another population resulting in improved biodegradation [11]. Interestingly, several microbial agents tailored for bioremediation of contaminated soil are widely known for their ability to induce systemic resistance and in addition, promote plant growth. These include different genera and species of bacteria (Bacillus, Streptomyces, Pseudomonas, Burkholderia and Agrobacterium) or fungi (e.g. Trichoderma, Talaromyces) [14] as well as their metabolites [15,16]. The use of beneficial bacteria may be a mean of overcoming the problem of pollutants accumulated by soil and, at the same time, remediating polluted environments. The present work brings new insights on the biodegradability of MtBE by selected bacteria useful both for plant protection against various pests and diseases and for soil bioremediation, through investigations on: (1) MtBE degradation ability of bacterial strains isolated from hydrocarbon-contaminated soil; (2) in vitro and in vivo bio-control activity of selected bacterial strains; and (3) their induced systemic resistance (ISR).

Materials and methods

Culture media

The culture growth media used throughout this work were Potato Dextrose Agar (PDA), Potato Dextrose Broth (PDB), Luria Bertani Broth (LB), Luria Bertani Agar (LBA), Plate Count Agar, OXOID (PCA), Plate Count Broth, OXOID (PCB), and Malt Extract + Mycological Peptone (MEP). The SM (pH 6.6) contained (g·l-1): KH2PO4, 0.68; K2HPO4, 0.87; KCL, 0.2; NH4NO3, 1; FeSO4, 0.002; ZnSO4, 0.002; MnSO4, 0.002; CaCl2, 0.2; MgSO4, 0.2. Instead, Frankia-Tween (FTW) medium was comprised (g·l-1) of the following: K2HPO4, 0.225; KH2PO4, 0.225; (NH4)2SO4, 0.225; MgSO4×7H2O, 0.05; CaCO3, 0.005; FeCl2×4H2O, 0.005. The liquid mineral medium was sterilized by autoclaving at 121°C for 20 min. MtBE (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA; 99.9% purity) was added to media following sterilization and cooling at room temperature.

Fungal microorganisms

Fungi used for assays were obtained from the fungal culture collection of the Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II (Portici, Naples, Italy), and designated as: Rhizoctonia solani, Pythium ultimum, Alternaria alternata and Botrytis cinerea. Fungal inocula were produced by individually culturing of isolates for 2 weeks on PDA (for A. alternata), on MEP (for B. cinerea) or on PDB (for R. solani and P. ultimum) with shaking (150 rpm) in darkness at 25°C. Plates were flooded with sterile distilled water and gently rubbed with a sterile, bent glass rod to release conidia. The spore suspensions were decanted through pads of sterile glass wool to remove mycelial debris. The spore concentration was determined using a Bright-line® hemocytometer (Sigma) and fungal constituents were cryopreserved with glycerol 20% (v/v) at -20°C until use.

Isolation and identification of bacteria from MtBE-contaminated soil

Microbial isolation

MtBE-contaminated soil, collected from an industrial area in Italy, was used to isolate new potential hydrocarbon-degrading microorganisms. Briefly, 20 g of soil samples were suspendend in 180 mL of quarter strength Ringer’s solution (Oxoid, Milan, Italy) containing tetrasodium pyrophosphate (16% w/v) according to Ventorino et al. [17]. After shaking, suitable tenfold dilutions were performed and used to inoculate (100 μL) PCA plates by using the Surface Spread Plate Count Method. Plates were incubated at 28°C for 48–72 h. After incubation, single colonies were randomly isolated on the basis of their colony morphology (i.e., shape, edge, color, elevation, and dimension) by repetitive streaking on the same isolation medium, and stored at 4°C as slant cultures until their characterization.

Identification of bacterial isolates

Bacterial isolates were identified using a polyphasic approach on the basis of their phenotypic, biochemical, and molecular characterization. Isolates were preliminarily characterized on the basis of their microscopic morphology (phase-contrast microscopy, shape, dimension, and presence of spores) and biochemical features (Gram stains and catalase activity) as previously reported [18].

Molecular identification was performed by 16S rRNA gene sequencing. Bacterial DNA was extracted using InstaGeneTM Matrix (Bio-Rad Laboratories, Hercules, CA) according to the supplier’s recommendations. Approximately 50 ng of DNA was used as template for PCR assay. The amplification of 16S rRNA gene was performed using synthetic oligonucleotide primers described by Weisburg et al. [19], fD1 (5′-AGAGTTTGATCCTGGCTCAG-3′) and rD1 (5′-AAGGAGGTGATCCAGCC-3′), Escherichia coli positions 8–17 and 1540–1524, respectively. The PCR mixture was prepared as reported by Alfonzo et al. [20]. The PCR conditions were performed as described by Viscardi et al. [21]. The PCR products were visualized by agarose (1.5% wt/vol) gel electrophoresis (100 V for 1 h) and then purified using the QIAquick gel extraction kit (Qiagen S.p.A., Milan, Italy). The DNA sequences were determined and analyzed as previously reported [22], and they were compared to the reference RNA sequences database of GenBank nucleotide data library using the Blast software at the National Centre of Biotechnology Information website (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Blast.cgi) [23].

Selection of bacteria for soil bioremediation

Screening in liquid medium

Bacterial strains were pre-inoculated dissolving a single colony in 10 mL of PCB and incubated overnight at 30°C. After incubation, a volume of each culture, corresponding to 0.1 O.D.600nm, was used to inoculate 10 mL of FTW medium supplemented with 50 ppm of MtBE (Sigma-Aldrich) as the sole carbon source. The cultures were incubated at 25°C for 7 days and the growth of bacterial strains was determined by measuring the absorbance at 600 nm using a spectrophotometer (Eppendorf, Milan, Italy). All tests were performed in triplicate.

The bacterial strains able to grow in the selective FTW medium with MtBE were selected for further investigations. Pre-inoculum of selected bacterial strains was performed as above reported and used to inoculate 50 mL of FTW medium supplemented with different MtBE concentrations (50, 100 and 500 ppm). Cultures were incubated for 7 days at 25°C and 150 rpm, in a rotary shaker incubator. Samples were withdrawn periodically at 0, 3, 5, and 7 days and cell growth was determined by a spread plate count method using PCA medium.

MtBE biodegradation assays

The degradation of MtBE was monitored by Gas Chromatography-Flame Ionization Detection (GC-FID) using a Shimadzu GC-17 (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) instrument with autoinjector. Separation was achieved using a ZB-WAX column (60 m x 0.53 mm id, x 1.00 um phase thickness), split injection 1:25, injection time 2 min. The time programme was: 35°C for 6 min, to 120°C with 4°C/min and to 240°C with 40°C/min, held at 240°C for 5 min, injector and detector temperatures were 200 and 240°C, respectively, helium (0.6mL/min) was used as a carrier gas. For headspace analysis, samples (10 ml) were stirred for 30 min at 70°C in headspace vials containing 2.5 g NaCl. Gas from the headspace (1 μl) was injected into the GC-FID. For data acquisition and data processing GC Solutions software ver. 2.3 was used.

Selection of bacteria for biocontrol

Screening of bacteria for in vitro antagonistic activity towards fungal pathogens

Selected bacteria, B. aryabhattai R1B, M. mucogenicum R8i and S. novella R8b, were tested for their ability to inhibit fungal soil pathogens (R. solani and P. ultimum) and foliar pathogens (B. cinerea and A. alternata) as described by Whipps [24]. Briefly, a single colony of each isolate was streaked on LBA plate and incubated for 3 days at 28°C. Then, two single colonies of each isolate for strain were picked and placed in 500 μL of sterile water. Fifty microliter of each solution were streaked on PDA plate and incubated at 28°C. After 24 h, a 5-mm agar disk containing actively growing margins of mycelial colonies was placed in the middle of the plate and incubated. Fungal growth inhibition was measured after 12, 24, 48 and 72 hours. Strains were tested in four replicates and the experiments were performed twice for each isolate. Untreated plates served as controls.

Screening of bacteria for the in vivo biocontrol activity towards B. cinerea and A. alternata

The ability of S. novella R8b, M. mucogenicum R8i and B. aryabhattai R1B to inhibit the growth of foliar pathogens, B. cinerea and A. alternate, was evaluated in in vivo assays. Tomato (Lycopersicum esculentum L. cv. Marmande) seeds were surface-sterilized (1% sodium hypochlorite for 2 min), rinsed several times, and sown in sterilized soil. After germination, the bacterial suspension was diluted with sterile distilled water to 1x107 CFU/mL, and then immediately applied (3 mL) to tomato leaves using an aerosol spray bottle (Nalgene Inc., Rochester, NY). After foliar application, seedlings were treated with 10μL of fungal pathogen inoculum (1x106 conidia/mL) in germination buffer (20 mM potassium phosphate and 20 mM glucose). Plants were bagged and placed in a randomized block design and then incubated at 18°C with >85% humidity for 7 days in a growth chamber (16 h/light photoperiod). Disease incidence was evaluated at 14 days after inoculation calculating the necrotic area per leaf (mm2) for treatment. The experiment was repeated twice and each treatment was replicated four times. Untreated plants served as controls.

Screening of bacteria for the in vivo biocontrol activity towards P. ultimum

The ability of selected bacterial strains to inhibit the growth of soil pathogen P. ultimum was evaluated in in vivo assays. Tomato seeds cv. Marmande were surface-sterilized as described above. About one gram of seeds were exposed to 1 mL of each bacterial suspension (1x107 CFU/mL). After coating, seeds were sown in soil uniformly amended with the biomass of P. ultimum at a dose of 3 g/L per soil. The disease incidence was evaluated at 7 and 14 days after inoculation counting the number of germinated seeds and measuring root growth. Pots were placed in a randomized block design and then incubated at 22°C under photoperiodic lighting (16 hours of light: 8 hours of dark) program (5,000 lux). The experiment included 8 treatments: untreated pots (water control), pots without bacterial and/or fungal inoculation (controls), and P. ultimum-infected pots treated with B. aryabhattai R1B, M. mucogenicum R8i and S. novella R8b. The experiment was repeated twice and each treatment was replicated four times.

Induced systemic resistance (ISR) assays

The capacity of B. aryabhattai R1B, M. mucogenicum R8i and S. novella R8b to induce systemic resistance in tomato plants cv. Marmande against B. cinerea was tested. Tomato seeds were sterilized (as above described) and sown in sterilized soil. Three ml of each bacterial suspension were sprayed onto true-leaf stage of the first stand growth of test plants at approximately 1x107 CFU/mL. Then, tomato leaves of the second stand growth were treated with 10μL of fungal pathogen inoculum (1x106 conidia/mL) in germination buffer. Plants were bagged and pots placed in a randomized block design at 18°C under photoperiodic lighting (16 hours of light: 8 hours of dark) program (5,000 lux). Disease incidence was evaluated at 48, 72 and 96 hours after B. cinerea inoculation measuring the necrotic area per leaf (mm2) for treatment. The experiment was repeated twice and each treatment was replicated four times. Untreated plants served as controls.

Isolation and characterization of secondary metabolites produced by selected bacterial strains

Selected bacterial strains were pre-grown in LB medium with shaking (150 rpm) at 25°C for 2 weeks. Cultures were centrifuged (15000 rpm) for 15 min to remove bacterial cells. Then, liquid cultures of each strain were filtered through No. 4 filter paper (Whatman, Brentford, U.K.) and exhaustively extracted with ethyl acetate (EtOAc, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO). The separated organic fractions were treated with anhydrous NaSO4 (Sigma-Aldrich) to remove water moisture and evaporated in vacuo at 35°C. The dried residue was subjected to analytical reverse-phase TLC (glass pre-coated Silica gel 60 RP-18 plates-Merck Kieselgel 60 TLC Silica gel 60 RP-18 F254s, 0.25 mm) using 8:2 v/v EtOAc: hexanes or 9:1 CHCl3:MeOH as eluents. Compounds were detected on TLC plates using UV light (254 or 366 nm) and/or by spraying the plates with 10% (w/v) CeSO4 in water or 5% (v/v) H2SO4 in EtOH followed by heating at 110° C for 10 min. The organic extracts obtained were submitted to silica gel column chromatography under atmospheric pressure (length 1.3 m and ø 4 cm). The sequence of elution step was performed using chloroform:methanol (8:2 v/v), chloroform:methanol (9:1 v/v) and methanol (MeOH 100%). Reactions were monitored by thin layer chromatography (TLC) using silica gel plates (Merck Silica Gel PF-254) and chloroform:methanol (9:1 v/v) as eluent. Homogeneous fractions were further purified by preparative TLC (Si gel; chloroform:methanol (9:1 v/v). All solvents and reagents used were supplied by Fluka (A.G. Bush, Svizzera).

Antibiosis assays against four soil-borne pathogens

The antibiotic properties of secondary metabolites extracted from selected bacterial strains were evaluated against soil-borne pathogens P. ultimum, A. alternata, B. cinerea and R. solani. Pathogen plugs from growing edges of colonies were placed at the center of Petri plates containing one-fifths of PDA. Ten microliters of the purified metabolite at concentrations ranging from 1 to 100 μg plug-1 were applied on the top of each plug. The control was obtained by applying 10 μL of solvent alone (EtOAc). The solvent was evaporated under a laminar flow cabinet and plates were incubated at 25°C for 3 days according to Almassi et al [25]. The pathogen growth was daily measured as colony diameter. Each treatment consisted of three replicates and the experiment was repeated twice.

Statistical analysis

Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS 15.0 software (SPSS for Windows). As the results from the repeated experiments were similar, data were pooled for the analysis of variance (ANOVA). Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05.

Accession numbers

The 16S rRNA gene sequences obtained from bacterial strains were deposited in the GenBank nucleotide database under accession numbers from MN206777 to MN206791 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov).

Results

Identification and selection of bacteria isolated from MtBE-contaminated soil

A total of 15 potential MtBE-degrading bacterial strains were isolated from MtBE-contaminated soil after incubation on PCA medium. The polyphasic approach of identification resulted in bacterial isolates with different shapes, dimensions and, in some cases, spore presence and great biodiversity, as eight genera and twelve different species were found (Table 1). Bacillus spp. was the most representative genus with the species B. aryabhattai, B. stratosphericus, B. thuringensis, B. mobilis, and B. marisflavi. The other bacterial genera were represented by one species identified as Pseudomonas xanthomarina, Kocuria rosea, Janibacter melonis, Starkeya novella, Bosea eneae, Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum, and Rhodovarius lipocyclicus (Table 1).

Table 1

Phenotypic characterization and molecular identification of 15 bacterial strains isolated from MtBE-contaminated soil.

Bacterial strains	Colony morphology	Cell morphology	Gram reaction	Catalase activity	Identification (% identity)	Accession Number
R1B	Opalescent, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus aryabhattai (99%)	MN206777
R1C1	White, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus stratosphericus (99%)	MN206778
R2b	White, translucent, round	Rod-shaped	-	+	Pseudomonas xanthomarina (99%)	MN206779
R3a	Pink-orange, circular, slightly convex, smooth	Cocci	+	+	Kocuria rosea (99%)	MN206780
R4a	White, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus thuringensis (99%)	MN206781
R7b1	White, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus mobilis (99%)	MN206782
R7C	White, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus mobilis (99%)	MN206783
R7e2C2	Yellow, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus marisflavi (98%)	MN206784
R7e2C11	White, round, convex	Cocci	+	+	Janibacter melonis (98%)	MN206785
R7e2d	Yellow-orange, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus marisflavi (98%)	MN206786
R8b	White-yellow, opalescent, round	Short rods	-	+	Starkeya novella (99%)	MN206787
R8e	White-cream, smooth, round	Short rods	-	+	Bosea eneae (99%)	MN206788
R8i	White, translucent, smooth, round	Rod-shaped	+	+	Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum (99%)	MN206789
R8fa	White, round	Short rods	-	+	Rhodovarius lipocyclicus (99%)	MN206790
O3a	White, irregular	Rod-shaped, endospore-forming	+	+	Bacillus thuringensis (99%)	MN206791

Preliminary screening of all bacterial strains in the selective liquid medium showed that only the three strains B. aryabhattai R1B, S. novella R8b, and M. mucogenicum R8i, were able to grow in the FTW medium supplemented with MtBE (50 ppm) as sole carbon source (data not shown).

Bacterial soil bioremediation

Bacterial growth and MtBE biodegradation on liquid medium

The three selected bacterial strains, B. aryabhattai R1B, S. novella R8b, and M. mucogenicum R8i, were tested for their ability to grow in the FTW medium supplemented with different concentrations of MtBE. Although all the strains were able to grow in the minimal selective medium containing different MtBE concentrations reaching values of 107−108 in 3–5 days, a different behavior in respect to chemical compound concentration was observed. In particular, the strain B. aryabhattai R1B reached a concentration of approximately 108 CFU/mL at 50 and 100 ppm of MtBE and showed the lowest growth on plates loaded with 500 ppm of MtBE (about 107 CFU/mL) exhibiting a moderate ability to degrade MtBE at 50 ppm (46%), 100 ppm (37%) and 500 ppm (15%) (Table 2). Similarly the highest cell growth of the strains M. mucogenicum R8i and S. novella R8b was observed in the cultural medium at lower concentration of MtBE (50 ppm), reaching values of about 108 CFU/mL (data not shown), exhibiting a significant degradation potential in the amount of 74 and 87%, respectively (Table 2). A lower growth, up to approximately 107 CFU/mL (data not shown) on plates with 100 and 500 ppm of MtBE, was observed for both strains with a degradation percentage ranging from 14 to 0% (Table 2).

Table 2

Quantification of MtBE degradation (%) produced by Bacillus aryabhattai R1B, Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i and Starkeya novella R8b in the presence of MTBE at 50, 100 and 500 ppm after 14 days of incubation.

Data were obtained using Gas Chromatographic-Flame Ionization Detector (GC-FID) method.

Bacterial Strains	MtBE concentration(ppm)
	50	100	500
B. aryabhattai R1B	46%	37%	15%
M. mucogenicum R8i	74%	4%	11%
S. novella R8b	87%	14%	0%

Bacterial biocontrol activity

Antagonism was evaluated in terms of reduction of fungal radial growth. Starkeya novella R8b and B. aryabhattai R1B were effective in reducing B. cinerea, P. ultimum and A. alternata activities. Overall, strain R8b produced greater inhibition than strain R1B against B. cinerea. The inhibition caused by strain R8b was 50%, 39% and 24% for B. cinerea, P. ultimum and A. alternata, respectively (Fig 1). Whereas, strain R1B inhibited fungal radial growths of P. ultimum (25%) and A. alternata (32%). No sign of growth inhibition of B. cinerea occurred using the bacterial strain R1B (Fig 1). Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i was not effective in reducing fungal activities. None of the selected bacterial strains inhibited R. solani radial growth (data not shown).

Fig 1

Percent fungal radial growth inhibition of Botrytis cinerea, P. ultimum and A. alternata in response to Starkeya novella R8b (R8b) and Bacillus aryabhattai R1B (R1B) on Petri plates of potato dextrose agar (PDA) at 28°C.

Inhibition area was measured after 96 hours of incubation. Values represent means of quadruplicate samples ± standard deviation. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments (P < 0.05).

Starkeya novella R8b and B. aryabhattai R1B were effective in reducing the disease incidence caused by B. cinerea (Fig 2) and A. alternata (Fig 3). Starkeya novella R8b and B. aryabhattai R1B statistically reduced foliar damages caused by both pathogens after 48 hrs in comparison to the control. The inhibition caused by strain R1B and R8b was up to 50% and 85%, respectively, for B. cinerea in comparison to the control (Fig 2). Whereas, Fig 4 shows the fungal inhibition caused by strain R1B (ranging from 53% to 74%) and R8b (ranging from 60% to 76%) against A. alternata. No sign of growth inhibition of both tested pathogens occurred using the bacterial strain R8i (Figs 2 and 3). Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i was not effective in reducing fungal activities. However, all selected bacterial strains were ineffective against R. solani (data not shown).

Fig 2

Mean inhibition of necrotic leaf area (mm2) of Botritys cinerea in response to Bacillus aryabhattai R1B (R1B), Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i (R8i) and Starkeya novella R8b (R8b) treatments.

Diameters of the necrotic area on leaves were measured after 14 days. Values represent means of quadruplicate samples ± standard deviation. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments at 48, 72 or 96 hours (P < 0.05).

Fig 3

Mean inhibition of necrotic leaf area (mm2) of Alternaria alternata in response to Bacillus aryabhattai R1B (R1B), Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i (R8i) and Starkeya novella R8b (R8b) treatments.

Diameters of the necrotic area on leaves were measured after 14 days. Values represent means of quadruplicate samples ± standard deviation. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference among treatments at 48, 72 or 96 hours (P < 0.05).

Fig 4

Tomato root growth infected by Pythium ultimum and treated with selected bacterial strains.

H2O (water), Pythium ultimum, Bacillus aryabhattai (R1B), Starkeya novella (R8b) and Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum (R8i) served as controls. Values represent means of triplicate samples, and error bars represent standard deviation of the mean. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments at 14 days (P < 0.05).

Results indicated that in absence of P. ultimum, bacterial-treated seedlings showed a more developed root system than the untreated control (Fig 4). In P. ultimum-inoculated soil, bacterial strains were not effective on tomato root growth (Fig 4). Whereas, seed germination was positively improved by treatments using all selected bacteria (Table 3).

Table 3

Tomato seed germination after 7 and 13 days from Pythium inoculum.

H2O (water), Pythium, Bacillus aryabhattai (R1B), Starkeya novella (R8b) and Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum (R8i) served as controls. Values represent means of triplicate samples ± standard deviation. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments at 7 and 14 days (P < 0.05).

Treatments	Seed germination (%)
	7 days	14 days
water	90.4 a	99.5 a
Pythium	60.0 c	65.3 c
R1B	60.2 c	97.9 a
R8B	91.3 a	98.9 a
R8i	82.1 b	96.9 a
R1B + Pythium	80.3 b	80.6 b
R8B + Pythium	72.3 c	81.9 b
R8i + Pythium	82.2 b	91.3 b

When tomato plants were inoculated with M. mucogenicum R8i, the appearance of necrotic cell death after leaf infection with B. cinerea was reduced by 50% 48 hours after pathogen challenge (Fig 5). After 72 and 96 hours strain R8i elicited systemic protection by more than 70%. B. aryabhattai R1B and S. novella R8b did not induce a resistance in tomato plants (not shown).

Fig 5

Effect of treatments with Mycolicibacterium mucogenicum R8i (R8i) on tomato leaves cv. Marmande infected with Botrytis cinerea.

For induced systemic resistance (ISR) test, the true-leaf stage of the first stand growth of plants was sprayed with R8i (1x107 CFU/ml) and the second stand growth was infected with Botrytis cinerea (1x106 conidia/ml). Plants were bagged and incubated at 18°C. Disease incidence was evaluated at 48, 72 and 96 hours, measuring the necrotic area per leaf (mm2). The experiment was repeated twice and each treatment was replicated four times. Means were compared using Student Newman Keuls multiple comparison test at P < 0.05. Different letters indicate significant difference between treatments at 48, 72 or 96 hours (P < 0.05).

Secondary metabolites obtained from culture filtrates of B. aryabhattai R1B and M. mucogenicum R8i were isolated and characterized as above reported. Oil residues of strains R1B and R8i (234.2 mg and 253 mg, respectively) were mainly composed of fatty acids and lipocarbohydrates as determined by NMR analysis. The separation of S. novella R8b extract (265.6 mg) yielded 14 different and homogeneous fractions. The main secondary metabolite of S. novella R8b was purified by the preparative TLC of fractions (2–3), (3–5)III and (6–14)d. The metabolite isolated showed chromatographic and spectroscopic properties (NMR and MS) similar to those reported in literature [26] for a compound known as maculosin (Fig 6).

Fig 6

Structure of maculosin.

In vitro antibiotic activity of the secondary metabolite maculosin against R. solani, B. cinerea, P. ultimum and A. alternata was tested. Results showed that only R. solani was slightly inhibited by maculosin at 100 μg (data not shown). Growth of R. solani was significantly reduced (up to 30%) by the highest concentration of maculosin after 48 hours of exposure.

Discussion

Bioremediation is an innovative technology that employs the metabolic potential of the microbial soil component in the remediation of contaminated environments. Specialized bacteria are able to withstand unfavorable conditions and degrade specific pollutants such as hydrocarbons, heavy metals and various pesticides [27]. The involvement of these microorganisms in the bioremediation process have found wide application in environmental and agricultural sectors [28,29,30,31,32]. Numerous treatments exploit the opportunity to use pollutant-degrading microorganisms previously isolated from soils contaminated by the same compound [33,34]. In fact, recently, it was demonstrated the capacity of natural ecosystems to develop a microbiota adapted to polluted soil due to anthropogenic activities as release of organic xenobiotic compounds [35]. In this way, it is possible to discover well-adapted microorganisms that are potentially able to metabolize organic pollutants converting them into less toxic and/or less mobile products. Bioremediation includes different processes that could be combined or improved through genetic manipulation or by altering the physico-chemical conditions of polluted sites [31,36,37,38,39,40]. These strategies are obviously subject to legal and socio-political barriers. In addition to bioremediation, microbes have applications in other areas of biotechnology, including the biological control of plant diseases.

In recent decades, there is increasing interest in the biological control techniques of plant diseases because of the traditional chemical control is causing serious problems, not only at the environmental, but also sanitary and economic levels. The use of pesticides contributes to soil and water pollutions, produces resistant pests and interferes with beneficial microflora and/or microfauna. Thus, eco-friendly strategies for plant protection represent a valid alternative to the use of synthetic chemicals, more respectful of environment, animal and human health [41,42,43,44]. Numerous species of bacteria are used in the biological control of plant diseases [45,46,47,48,49].

In view of these issues, bacteria play a key role in the bioremediation processes since they are able to degrade the organic matter producing a multiplicity of enzymes; moreover, they are characterized by a reproduction rate generally higher than other microorganisms [50]. In this work, 15 potential MtBE-degrading bacterial strains were isolated from MtBE-contaminated soil. Among these, the three strains B. aryabhattai R1B, S. novella R8b and M. mucogenicum R8i were able to grow using MtBE as carbon source, although they exhibited different growth behavior on high MtBE exposure as well as in degrading the chemical compound. Although the ability of some strains belonging to Mycobacterium genus to be involved into degradation of MtBE it was reported [51,52], this is the first known report describing the occurrence of this activity in M. mucogenicum species. Similarly, no previous works reported the ability of strains belonging to B. aryabhattai and S. novella species in degrading MtBE. However, Bacillus genus includes species that are able to degrade a wide variety of organic materials [53]. Recently, Wahla et al. [54] used a strain belonging to the B. aryabhattai species, isolated from contaminated soils, in consortium with other bacterial strains for biodegradation of the herbicide Metribuzin. It was reported that B. aryabhattai strains are also useful in arsenic bioremediation [55] as well as are able to promote rice seedlings growth and alleviate arsenic phytotoxicity [56]. Moreover, this species as well as S. novella are known to be able degrading organophosphate insecticides [57,58]. Dudášová et al. [59] reported a newly isolated bacterial strain S. novella with PCB-degrading ability in liquid medium as well as in PCB-contaminated sediment.

The biocontrol ability of selected bacteria was tested for the first time through in vitro and in vivo antagonism and ISR tests against various fungal pathogens. In vitro the most interesting results were obtained from S. novella R8b and B. aryabhattai R1B. These strains were effective in reducing the development of necrotic areas on leaves within 48 hours from the inoculation of B. cinerea and A. alternata. On the other hand, M. mucogenicum R8i effectively controlled B. cinerea after 72 hours from pathogen inoculation. Similar results were achieved using P. ultimum, in which the application of isolated bacteria increased seed germination. In our experiments, only M. mucogenicum R8i elicited tomato plants resistance against B. cinerea. The main mechanism of inhibition is due to the production of antibiotic compounds [60].

Although M. mucogenicum showed bioremediation and biocontrol proprieties, mycobacteria are dangerous human and animal pathogens, causing not only tuberculosis, leprosy and severe mycobacterioses [61]. With regard to mycobacterial diversity, investigations have revealed the presence of specific species for hydrocarbon-contaminated soils such as M. monascense and M. chlorophenolicum [62]. In particular, M. mucogenicum has been detected in the water and aerosol samples in a hospital therapy pool environment [63].

The secondary metabolite, obtained from S. novella R8b and identified as the diketopiperazine maculosin, is known as a host-specific fungal phytotoxin produced by A. alternata on Centaurea maculosa [26]. Thus, maculosin is considered as a chemical lead for developing an environmentally friendly antiknapweed herbicide [64]. However, we report for the first time that maculosin is also produced by S. novella and exhibit antibiotic activity against R. solani. These findings open interesting perspectives on the possibility of using bacterial microorganisms and/or their derivatives for the formulation of new commercial products for plant protection.

In conclusion, bioformulations are less dangerous than synthetic pesticides for human and animal health, and the environment. Our results highlight the importance of complementary screening steps through a multidisciplinary approach to obtain a more representative selection of bacterial strains for plant protection and bioremediation purposes.

26 Nov 2019

PONE-D-19-29309

Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr Vinale,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

The paper has been revised by two experts who suggested to insert some minor revision in order to render the ms acceptable for publication in PlosOne.

We would appreciate receiving your revised manuscript by Jan 10 2020 11:59PM. When you are ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter.

To enhance the reproducibility of your results, we recommend that if applicable you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io, where a protocol can be assigned its own identifier (DOI) such that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). This letter should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. This file should be uploaded as separate file and labeled 'Manuscript'.

Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Sabrina Sarrocco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and http://www.journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. We note that you have included the phrase “data not shown” in your manuscript. Unfortunately, this does not meet our data sharing requirements. PLOS does not permit references to inaccessible data. We require that authors provide all relevant data within the paper, Supporting Information files, or in an acceptable, public repository. Please add a citation to support this phrase or upload the data that corresponds with these findings to a stable repository (such as Figshare or Dryad) and provide and URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers that may be used to access these data. Or, if the data are not a core part of the research being presented in your study, we ask that you remove the phrase that refers to these data.

3. Thank you for stating the following in the Financial Disclosure section:

The authors received no specific funding for this work.

We note that one or more of the authors are employed by a commercial company: Cosvitec scarl.

1. Please provide an amended Funding Statement declaring this commercial affiliation, as well as a statement regarding the Role of Funders in your study. If the funding organization did not play a role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript and only provided financial support in the form of authors' salaries and/or research materials, please review your statements relating to the author contributions, and ensure you have specifically and accurately indicated the role(s) that these authors had in your study. You can update author roles in the Author Contributions section of the online submission form.

Please also include the following statement within your amended Funding Statement.

“The funder provided support in the form of salaries for authors [insert relevant initials], but did not have any additional role in the study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. The specific roles of these authors are articulated in the ‘author contributions’ section.”

If your commercial affiliation did play a role in your study, please state and explain this role within your updated Funding Statement.

2. Please also provide an updated Competing Interests Statement declaring this commercial affiliation along with any other relevant declarations relating to employment, consultancy, patents, products in development, or marketed products, etc.

Within your Competing Interests Statement, please confirm that this commercial affiliation does not alter your adherence to all PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials by including the following statement: "This does not alter our adherence to  PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials.” (as detailed online in our guide for authors http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests) . If this adherence statement is not accurate and  there are restrictions on sharing of data and/or materials, please state these. Please note that we cannot proceed with consideration of your article until this information has been declared.

Please include both an updated Funding Statement and Competing Interests Statement in your cover letter. We will change the online submission form on your behalf.

Please know it is PLOS ONE policy for corresponding authors to declare, on behalf of all authors, all potential competing interests for the purposes of transparency. PLOS defines a competing interest as anything that interferes with, or could reasonably be perceived as interfering with, the full and objective presentation, peer review, editorial decision-making, or publication of research or non-research articles submitted to one of the journals. Competing interests can be financial or non-financial, professional, or personal. Competing interests can arise in relationship to an organization or another person. Please follow this link to our website for more details on competing interests: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/competing-interests

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Article entitled “Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes” by G. d´Errico and coworkers, described the isolation of a total of 15 strain from MtBE contaminated soils, from where they finally selected three strains able to grow in MtBE as sole carbon source. Authors study their ability to degrade MtBE, but also they analyze their in vitro and in vivo ability to antagonize three different fungal pathogens, as well as their effect in tomato seeds germination and tomato root growth in plants infected or not with the pathogen Pythium ultimum. Authors finally isolated the metabolite maculosin from strain R8b and determine their effect on inhibition of R. solani.

Article it is interesting since identified bacterial strains putatively interesting in bioremediation of MtBE contaminated soils, but also analyzed their ability to induce growth and defense response in plants, which both are together very interesting properties. Thus, this work includes new insights in these two, apparently unrelated fields, bioremediation and biocontrol.

The experiments are clearly presented and article well written.

I only have included some minor suggestions (below) that could contribute to the improvement of this manuscript.

Abstract

Lines 22-23. Please specify if B. aryabhattai refers to a Bacillus or a Bosea species.

Results

Section starting on Line 277.- It would be interesting to know why authors do not include strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this analysis. Please explain.

Legend to Fig. 2 must be wrong since in that Figure there are included data from strains R1B, R8b and R8i, while in the legend indicates that only data from B. aryabhattai R1b are included. Please correct the legend.

Section starting on line 337. Authors would have to explain more in detail why they only used strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this study.

Reviewer #2: The MS is overall well written, and authors presented using a multidisciplinary approach novelty results, reporting for the first time the occurrence of bioremediation and biocontrol activities of some species of Bacteria.

I suggest, if the authors had some good pictures of the experiment in vivo, to insert them in the MS or in the Supplementary Materials.

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria sprayed on the tomato leaves against some insect parasites, such as aphids, mites, and Tuta absoluta? Could be used also as insecticides?

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria against plant parasitic nematodes? Could be used also as nematocides?

If know, what is the impact of these selected bacteria on soil microorganisms such as collembola, mites and other micro arthropods?

I have some suggestions to improve the article:

Line 22 and lines 278, 295, 296: at the beginning of sentence report the entire name of the genus. Bacillus and not the abbreviation. Starkeya and not the abbreviation. Check it in all the MS.

Lines 58-60: I suggest to insert e.g. after the first bracket and to delete etc at the end.

Line 84: I suggest to change with culturing the isolates.

Line 93: Specify where the contaminated soil was collected.

Lines 149-157: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Lines 159-171: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Lines 186-196: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

Line 434-436: …screening steps through a multidisciplinary approach to obtain…

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files to be viewed.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Jan 2020

Dear Editor,

MANUSCRIPT: PONE-D-19-29309

We are very grateful to the editor and reviewers for their suggestions, which have been very helpful in improving the manuscript. The revised manuscript with track changes and an unmarked version have been uploaded as separate files. We have made a considerable effort to consider all the interesting suggestions and corrections proposed by the reviewers. However, should it be necessary, further comments and suggestions are welcome. Below, are the point-to-point answers to the comments of the reviewers.

On behalf of all co-authors,

Yours sincerely,

Francesco Vinale

Reviewer comments:

Reviewer #1:

1) Article it is interesting since identified bacterial strains putatively interesting in bioremediation of MtBE contaminated soils, but also analyzed their ability to induce growth and defense response in plants, which both are together very interesting properties. Thus, this work includes new insights in these two, apparently unrelated fields, bioremediation and biocontrol. The experiments are clearly presented and article well written.

Thank you for your positive comments.

2) Abstract (lines 22-23): Please specify if B. aryabhattai refers to a Bacillus or a Bosea species.

B. aryabhattai refers to a Bacillus species. This information is now indicated in the text.

3) Results: section starting on Line 277. It would be interesting to know why authors do not include strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this analysis. Please explain.

M. mucogenicum R8i was not effective in reducing fungal activities. This information is now indicated in the text.

4) Legend to Fig. 2 must be wrong since in that Figure there are included data from strains R1B, R8b and R8i, while in the legend indicates that only data from B. aryabhattai R1b are included. Please correct the legend.

Legend has been corrected.

5) Section starting on line 337. Authors would have to explain more in detail why they only used strain M. mucogenicum R8i in this study.

We have not used only M. mucogenicum R8i. Data are shown in figure only for this bacteria because B. aryabhattai R1B and S. novella R8b did not induce a resistance in tomato plants as reported at lines 346-347.

Reviewer #2:

The MS is overall well written, and authors presented using a multidisciplinary approach novelty results, reporting for the first time the occurrence of bioremediation and biocontrol activities of some species of Bacteria.

Thank you for your positive comments.

I suggest, if the authors had some good pictures of the experiment in vivo, to insert them in the MS or in the Supplementary Materials.

We have some pictures of the experiment in vivo but the quality is not high. If it is necessary we could insert them as supplementary materials.

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria sprayed on the tomato leaves against some insect parasites, such as aphids, mites, and Tuta absoluta? Could be used also as insecticides?

If know, what is the effect of these selected bacteria against plant parasitic nematodes? Could be used also as nematocides?

If know, what is the impact of these selected bacteria on soil microorganisms such as collembola, mites and other micro arthropods?

Our work was aimed at the evaluation of these selected bacteria against fungal pathogens. Actually, we don’t have results against other organisms but future studies could investigate the activity of selected bacteria against other target organisms.

Line 22 and lines 278, 295, 296: at the beginning of sentence report the entire name of the genus. Bacillus and not the abbreviation. Starkeya and not the abbreviation. Check it in all the MS.

All suggested changes are now included in the text.

Lines 58-60: I suggest to insert e.g. after the first bracket and to delete etc at the end

Suggested changes are now included in the text.

Line 84: I suggest to change with culturing the isolates.

In our opinion, the sentence is correct and do not needs this change.

Line 93: Specify where the contaminated soil was collected.

The contaminated soil was collected in proximity of a fuel distributor located in Campania Region (Italy).

Lines 149-157: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

The text was modified according to your suggestions.

Lines 159-171: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

The text was modified according to your suggestions.

Lines 186-196: Where is the control? It is not clear what bacterial strains were used. Please, clarify.

The text was modified according to your suggestions.

Line 434-436: …screening steps through a multidisciplinary approach to obtain…

This sentence was modified according to your suggestion.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.doc

Click here for additional data file.

28 Jan 2020

Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes

PONE-D-19-29309R1

Dear Dr. Vinale,

We are pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it complies with all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you will receive an e-mail containing information on the amendments required prior to publication. When all required modifications have been addressed, you will receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will proceed to our production department and be scheduled for publication.

Shortly after the formal acceptance letter is sent, an invoice for payment will follow. To ensure an efficient production and billing process, please log into Editorial Manager at https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the "Update My Information" link at the top of the page, and update your user information. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, you must inform our press team as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

With kind regards,

Sabrina Sarrocco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

14 Feb 2020

PONE-D-19-29309R1

Methyl t-butyl ether-degrading bacteria for bioremediation and biocontrol purposes

Dear Dr. Vinale:

I am pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper at this point, to enable them to help maximize its impact. If they will be preparing press materials for this manuscript, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

For any other questions or concerns, please email plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE.

With kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr Sabrina Sarrocco

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE