| Literature DB >> 32240203 |
Maja A Zaczek-Moczydłowska1, Gillian K Young2, James Trudgett3, Cali Plahe4, Colin C Fleming2,4, Katrina Campbell1, Richard O' Hanlon2,4.
Abstract
Globally, there is a high economic burden caused by pre- and post-harvest losses in vegetables, fruits and ornamentals due to soft rot diseases. At present, the control methods for these diseases are limited, but there is some promise in developing biological control products for use in Integrated Pest Management. This study sought to formulate a phage cocktail which would be effective against soft rot Pectobacteriaceae species affecting potato (Solanum tuberosum L.), with potential methods of application in agricultural systems, including vacuum-infiltration and soil drench, also tested. Six bacteriophages were isolated and characterized using transmission electron microscopy, and tested against a range of Pectobacterium species that cause soft rot/blackleg of potato. Isolated bacteriophages of the family Podoviridae and Myoviridae were able to control isolates of the Pectobacterium species: Pectobacterium atrosepticum and Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. carotovorum. Genomic analysis of three Podoviridae phages did not indicate host genes transcripts or proteins encoding toxin or antibiotic resistance genes. These bacteriophages were formulated as a phage cocktail and further experiments showed high activity in vitro and in vivo to suppress Pectobacterium growth, potentially indicating their efficacy in formulation as a microbial pest control agent to use in planta.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32240203 PMCID: PMC7117878 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0230842
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Summary of field experiments performed in years 2016–2018 on potato tubers in Northern Ireland to control soft rot/blackleg using phage cocktail.
| Year | Location | No. of plants per plot X no. of plots | Number of applications | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| VI | SD | |||
| 2016 | Belfast, Co. Antrim | 40 x 8 | 1 | 4 |
| 2017 | Crossnacreevy, Co. Down | 40 x 8 | 1 | 4 |
| Greenmount, Co. Antrim | 20 x 4 | 1 | 4 | |
| 2018 | Crossnacreevy, Co. Down | 20 x 4 | 1 | 4 |
| Loughgall, Co. Armagh | 20 x 4 | 1 | 4 | |
aLocation in Northern Ireland, UK.
bNumber of applications during one growing season.
cPhage cocktail treatment on artificial bacterial inoculum (P. atrosepticum: P16, C2557 and P1B, P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum: SR22) ca. 108 cfu ml -1 applied on tubers before planting through vacuum–infiltration.
dPhage cocktail treatment on potato tubers exposed on naturally low inoculum from environmental sources or infected seeds (approximately ca. 102 cfu ml-1).
eVI—phage cocktail applied before planting by vacuum–infiltration.
fSD—spraying of soil by phage cocktail with first spraying after planting following 4 weeks (1l/week).
Fig 1Transmission electron micrographs of six negatively stained (4% ammonium molybdate) bacteriophages isolated in this study belonging to two families of Caudovirales order.
Bacteriophages of Podoviridae family: φMA2, φMA5, φMA1A, φMA6, and Myoviridae family bacteriophages: φMA7 and φMA1.
Characteristics of six isolated bacteriophages by visual assessment of plaque morphology and determination of morphotype using TEM.
| No. | Phage | Plaque description | Head diameter (nm) | Tail length (nm) | Order | Family |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. | φMA1 | small, transparent | 80.73 x 61.70 | 111.5 | ||
| 2. | φMA1A | medium, semi-transparent | 55.34 x 53.31 | short, non-contractile | ||
| 3. | φMA2 | medium, semi-transparent | 56.29 x 54.86 | short, non-contractile | ||
| 4. | φMA5 | big, semi-transparent | 51.64 x 54.77 | 14.2 | ||
| 5. | φMA6 | small, semi-transparent | 50.20 x 51.30 | short, non-contractile | ||
| 6. | φMA7 | small, transparent | 70.15 x 113.6 | 113.9 |
aPlaque morphology assessed in overlay assay [13].
bPhages morphology determined using TEM.
Host range of six bacteriophages isolated in this study.
| Bacteria | Bacteriophages | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Species | Isolate | φMA1 | φMA2 | φMA5 | φMA1A | φMA6 | φMA7 |
| P4A | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| P4B | N | + | N | + | N | N | |
| P4C/16 | + | N | N | + | N | N | |
| P2A | N | + | + | N | N | N | |
| P2B | N | N | N | N | N | N | |
| P3A/16 | N | + | N | N | N | N | |
| P1B | + | + | + | + | N | N | |
| C2557 | + | + | + | + | + | N | |
| PM/Z4/15 | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| PM/Z6/15 | N | + | + | N | N | N | |
| P16 | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| P48 | N | + | N | + | N | N | |
| P18B | N | + | N | N | N | N | |
| P13B | N | + | N | + | N | N | |
| P1B/14 | N | + | + | + | N | + | |
| SR22 | + | + | + | + | + | + | |
| C2558 | N | + | + | N | N | + | |
| C2559 | N | N | N | N | + | + | |
N—no lysis obtained in overlay and plaque assay. ‘+’—bacteria lysis.
Genome sizes and pairwise identities of bacteriophages determined using NGS.
| Accession no. | Phage | Order | Family | Subfamily | Morphotype | Ida (%) | Reads no. | Genome (bp) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MN271656 | φMA2 | 95.7 | 14,285 | 41,857 | ||||
| MN308080 | φMA1A | 85.3 | 12,741 | 39,781 | ||||
| MN327636 | φMA6 | 85.5 | 17,592 | 38,553 |
aPercentage identity determinate using BLAST [28] as first hit available in GenBank.
bFamily, subfamily and morphotype identified using BLAST [28].
Fig 2Suppression of Pectobacterium spp. by phage cocktail measured as change in absorbance at OD = 600 nm.
Fig 3Percentage of soft rot mass in potato tubers Dunbar Standard inoculated in semi–in planta experiment with Pectobacterium species and six bacteriophages φMA1, φMA1A, φMA2, φMA5, φMA6 and φMA7 tested individually for 48 h at 25°C in humid conditions.
(A) SR22 (P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum), (B) P16 (P. atrosepticum). As a negative control (NC) NB was used. Box–plots are significantly different based on a Fisher’s LSD multiple comparison test (p = 0.05). Experiment performed in triplicate (n = 3) with (n = 2) replication and repeated over time (n = 2).
Fig 4Percentage of soft rot mass in potato tubers Dunbar Standard inoculated in semi–in planta experiment with Pectobacterium species and six bacteriophages φMA1, φMA1A, φMA2, φMA5, φMA6 and φMA7 tested individually for 48 h at 25°C in humid conditions.
(A) P1B (P. atrosepticum), (B) C2557 (P. atrosepticum). As a negative control (NC) NB was used. Box–plots are significantly different based on a Fisher’s LSD multiple comparison test (p = 0.05). Experiment performed in triplicate (n = 3) with (n = 2) replication and repeated over time (n = 2).
Fig 5Percentage of soft rot area of potato tubers (four randomized cultivars including Dunbar Standard, British Queen, Amora and Maris Piper) in co-infection with phage cocktail and Pectobacterium spp. Only Pectobacterium spp. (P. atrosepticum and P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum) as a positive control and sterile water as a negative control.
Box–plots are significantly different based on a Fisher’s LSD multiple comparison test (p = 0.001). Experiment performed in triplicate (n = 3) with (n = 2) replication and repeated over time (n = 2).
Means of potato tubers treatments—soil drench, vacuum-infiltration, negative control, untreated and positive control obtained from field trials 2016 (Belfast), 2017 (Crossnacreevy) and 2018 (Greenmount, Loughgall and Crossnacreevy) for emergence (%), yield: Mass of tubers after harvest (kg) and tuber number after harvest, soft rot after harvest /blackleg (%).
| Treatment | Emergence | Yield | Disease | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mass | Tuber no. | Sr | ||||||||||
| Means | ||||||||||||
| Year | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 |
| Soil Drench | 28.4 | 92.5 | 81.3 | 11.66 | 32 | 4.9 | 130.5 | 474 | 50.4 | 0.6 | 0/0 | 0.1 |
| Soil Drench | n/t | n/t | 86.7 | n/t | n/t | 3.8 | n/t | n/t | 52.9 | n/t | n/t | 0.4 |
| Vacuum- Infiltration | 14 | 70.6 | 73.3 | 5.4 | 22.5 | 4.0 | 60 | 365 | 44.6 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 2.9 |
| Untreated | 32 | 79.4 | 84.2 | 15.5 | 23.1 | 4.0 | 193.1 | 371 | 34.3 | 15/0 | 0.4/0 | 4.3/0.4 |
| Negative Control | 18.8 | 52.2 | 74.6 | 7.0 | 16.0 | 3.9 | 77.9 | 290 | 36.3 | 0.9/0 | 0.2/0 | 3.0/0.8 |
| Negative Control | n/t | n/t | 86.7 | n/t | n/t | 2.9 | n/t | n/t | 38.6 | n/t | n/t | 0.3/0 |
| Positive Control | 18.1 | 43.1 | 73.3 | 2.0 | 11.0 | 2.2 | 16.6 | 178 | 29.0 | 0.4/0 | 0.6/0.1 | 23.1/10.4 |
1Untreated potato tubers sprayed with phage cocktail from planting up to 4 weeks (ones per week).
2Potato tubers inoculated with artificial Pectobacterium suspension ca.108 cfu ml-1 using vacuum–infiltration and sprayed with phage cocktail from planting day up to 4 weeks (ones per week).
3Potato tubers inoculated with artificial Pectobacterium suspension ca.108 cfu ml-1 and phage cocktail using vacuum–infiltration.
4Potato tubers inoculated with NB using vacuum–infiltration.
5Untreated potato tubers sprayed with NB from planting day up to 4 weeks (ones per week).
6Potato tubers inoculated with artificial Pectobacterium suspension ca.108 cfu ml-1 using vacuum–infiltration.
7Mass of potato tubers harvested.
8Number of potato tubers harvested.
9Percentage of soft rot = number of plants with soft rot symptoms x 100% / total number of plants tested.
10Percentage of blackleg = number of plants with blackleg symptoms x 100% / total number of plants tested.
11Percentage emergence = number of plants assessed x 100% / number of plants planted. Asterisk (*) indicates a significant difference between the phage cocktail and positive control treatments according to Fisher’s least significant difference at
P < 0.05(*) and
P < 0.001(**).
Asterisk (^) indicates a significant difference between vacuum-infiltration and soil drench treatments according to Fisher’s least significant difference.
Fig 6Percentage of soft rot on potato tubers (four randomized cultivars including: Dunbar Standard, British Queen, Maris Piper and Amora) after inoculation of mother tubers with a phage cocktail treatment from a field trial in 2016 and inoculated in vitro with Pectobacterium species.
(A) Tubers inoculated with P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum (SR22). (B) Tubers inoculated with mix of P. atrosepticum (P16, P1B and C2557). Only the P. atrosepticum mix or P. carotovorum subsp. carotovorum was inoculated as a positive control. NB inoculated as a negative control. Box–plots indicate significant differences based on Fisher’s LSD multiple comparison test (p = 0.05). Experiment performed in triplicate (n = 3) with (n = 2) replication and repeated over time (n = 2).