| Literature DB >> 32252828 |
Xianfeng Ye1, Zhoukun Li1, Xue Luo1, Wenhui Wang2, Yongkai Li1, Rui Li1, Bo Zhang1, Yan Qiao1, Jie Zhou1, Jiaqin Fan3, Hui Wang2, Yan Huang1, Hui Cao1, Zhongli Cui4,5, Ruifu Zhang6.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Myxobacteria are micropn>redators in the soil ecosystem with the capn>acity to move and feed coopn>eratively. Some myxobacterial strains have been used to control soil-borne fungal phytopn>athogens. However, interactions among myxobacteria, plant pathogens, and theEntities:
Keywords: Cooccurrence network; Corallococcus sp. EGB; Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cucumerinum; Micropredator; Myxobacteria; Root exudates; Soil microbiome
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32252828 PMCID: PMC7137222 DOI: 10.1186/s40168-020-00824-x
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Microbiome ISSN: 2049-2618 Impact factor: 14.650
Effects of strain EGB solid culture application on the disease incidences of cucumber Fusarium wilt, and quantities of strains FOC and EGB in soil surrounding cucumber roots
| Treatments | 15th day | 27th day | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Disease incidence (%) | Biocontrol efficiency (%) | Disease incidence (%) | Biocontrol efficiency (%) | Ct value | Log10 Copies g−1 soil | Ct value | Log10 Copies g−1 soil | |
| NT | − | − | − | − | 33.1 ± 0.34a | − | 32.9 ± 0.06a | − |
| EGB | − | − | − | − | 31.7 ± 0.54b | − | 24.3 ± 0.70d | 6.09 ± 0.18a |
| EGBFOC | 15.5 ± 2.1b | 67.4 | 14.3 ± 0.0b | 79.6 | 30.2 ± 0.41c | 4.53 ± 0.12b | 26.3 ± 0.45c | 5.56 ± 0.12b |
| FOC | 47.6 ± 5.5a | − | 70.2 ± 4.1a | − | 25.3 ± 0.12d | 5.91 ± 0.03a | 30.6 ± 0.79b | 4.42 ± 0.21c |
Note: In greenhouse experiment, each treatment had three repeats and the data represent the means and standard deviations (mean ± SD) from three replications. In the same column, values designated with the same letters were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s test. NT, no FOC or strain EGB solid culture; EGB, strain EGB solid culture only; EGBFOC, both FOC and EGB solid culture; FOC, FOC only
Fig. 1Two-year field performance of strain EGB in the control of cucumber Fusarium wilt. A Growth of cucumbers one-month post application of strain EGB in 2015; a Control without any treatment, b EGB liquid culture, and c EGB solid culture. B, C Statistical analysis of wilt disease incidences in 2015 (B) and 2016 (C). Two hundred cucumbers in each treatment were randomly divided into four blocks, and bars indicate the standard deviations of the averages from four replicates. Values designated with the same letters were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s test
Fig. 2Sampling strategy (a) and relative spatiotemporal abundances of Corallococcus (b) and Fusarium (c). I, Strain EGB inoculation site; R, the sampling site surrounding the roots; M, a site between the cucumber root and inoculation site; NT, no FOC or strain EGB solid culture; EGB, strain EGB solid culture only; EGBFOC, both FOC and EGB solid culture; FOC, FOC only. Each sample had 3 repeats, and the bars represent the standard deviations of averages from three replicates. Values designated with the same letters were not significantly different (p ≤ 0.05) according to Duncan’s test
Fig. 3Chemotaxis of strain EGB towards cucumber root exudates on TPM plates. a Diagram of the chemotactic response of EGB to the chemicals. b Feasibility test of the chemotaxis assay with citrate acid. c Chemotaxis of strain EGB towards cucumber root exudate. RE, root exudates of cucumber; black arrow, sites where asymmetric swarming occurred; white arrow, sites where the chemicals were dropped; red dotted line, edge of the swarming colonies of strain EGB. The experiment was repeated four times, with three replicates each time
The chemotactic response of strain EGB to 13 compounds in cucumber root exudates
| Chemicals | Concentration | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10 μM | 30 μM | 50 μM | 80 μM | 100 μM | 1 mM | 10 mM | 100 mM | |
| Citrate | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Malate | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Succinate | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Fumarate | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Alanine | − | − | − | − | − | |||
| Aspartic acid | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Tryptophan | − | − | − | − | − | − | ||
| Valine | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Sucrose | − | − | − | − | − | − | − | − |
| Maltose | − | |||||||
| Glucose | − | − | − | − | − | − | ||
| Maltitol | − | − | ||||||
| Arabitol | − | − | − | − | ||||
Note: “+”, positive chemotactic response, multiple + represent the strength of chemotactic response; “−”, no chemotactic response. The experiment was repeated three times with three sample replicates
Fig. 4Colonization of cucumber roots by strain EGB. a, c, and e Meristematic zones of cucumber roots. b, d, and f Elongation zones of cucumber roots. a, b Blank TPM buffer control. c, dE. coli DH10B negative control. e, f EGB treatment. Arrows, cells of E. coli DH10B or strain EGB
Fig. 5Principal component analysis of the soil bacterial (a) and fungal (b) communities. NT, no FOC or strain EGB solid culture; EGB, strain EGB solid culture only; EGBFOC, both FOC and EGB solid culture; FOC, FOC only. R, the sampling site surrounding the roots; M, the site between the inoculation site and the cucumber roots; 15, soils sampled on the 15th day; 27, soils sampled on the 27th day
Correlation and topological properties of the microbiome networks
| Bacteria | Fungi | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NT | EGB | EGBFOC | FOC | M | R | 15th day | 27th day | NT + FOC | EGB + EGBFOC | |
| Number of nodesa | 186 | 252 | 288 | 174 | 293 | 279 | 290 | 283 | 186 | 158 |
| Number of edgesb | 266 | 636 | 984 | 326 | 5669 | 2705 | 5195 | 4826 | 349 | 333 |
| Positive edgesc | 238 | 608 | 804 | 307 | 3899 | 2390 | 3546 | 3541 | 289 | 284 |
| Negative edgesd | 28 | 28 | 180 | 19 | 1770 | 315 | 1649 | 1285 | 60 | 49 |
| Modularitye | 0.873 | 0.756 | 0.631 | 0.780 | 0.243 | 0.381 | 0.246 | 0.212 | 0.871 | 0.828 |
| Number of communityf | 39 | 32 | 29 | 34 | 19 | 15 | 21 | 21 | 29 | 25 |
| Network diameterg | 7 | 7 | 19 | 7 | 11 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Average path lengthh | 1.835 | 2.102 | 5.533 | 1.849 | 2.837 | 3.449 | 2.767 | 2.836 | 1.790 | 1.589 |
| Average degreei | 1.430 | 2.524 | 3.417 | 1.874 | 19.348 | 9.695 | 17.914 | 17.053 | 1.876 | 2.108 |
| Average clustering coefficientj | 0.175 | 0.208 | 0.186 | 0.218 | 0.288 | 0.254 | 0.292 | 0.264 | 0.270 | 0.286 |
| Densityk | 0.008 | 0.010 | 0.012 | 0.011 | 0.066 | 0.035 | 0.062 | 0.060 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
Note: R, cucumber root surrounding soil samples; M, soil sampled from the site between the cucumber root and inoculation site; 15th day, soils sampled on the 15th day; 27th day, soils sampled on the 27th day; NT, no FOC or strain EGB solid culture; EGB, strain EGB solid culture only; EGBFOC, both FOC and EGB solid culture; FOC, FOC only
aMicrobial taxa (at the genus level) with at least one significant (p < 0.001) and strong (r > 0.7 or ≤ 0.7) correlation. R language and corr.test() were used for correlation analysis
bNumber of connections obtained by R language analysis (R 2017, 4version 3.5.3)
cPositive correlation (> 0.7 with p < 0.01) between two microbial taxa
dNegative correlation (≥ 0.7 with p < 0.01) between two microbial taxa
eStructure with high-density connections between nodes (inferred by Gephi)
fA community is defined as a group of nodes that are densely connected internally (Gephi)
gThe longest distance between nodes in the network, measured in number of edges (Gephi)
hAverage network distance between all pair of nodes or the average length of all edges in the network (Gephi)
iThe average number of connections of every node in the network (Gephi)
jThe average clustering coefficient is defined as the mean value of individual coefficients (Gephi)
kThe density used to measures how close the network is to complete. A complete graph has all possible edges and density equal to 1 (Gephi)
Fig. 6Network cooccurrence analysis (Spearman |ρ| > 0.7 and p < 0.001) of bacterial communities from different soil samples. Each node represents the taxonomic level of the genus (based on 16S rRNA), and the size of the node is proportional to the relative abundance of the genus in the sample. Red lines represent a positive correlation, and blue lines represent a negative correlation. Line thickness represents the degree of the correlation. Predatory bacteria are marked with yellow boxes. R, the sampling sites surrounding the roots; M, the site between the cucumber root and inoculation site; NT, no FOC or strain EGB solid culture; EGB, strain EGB solid culture only; EGBFOC, both FOC and EGB solid culture; FOC, FOC only; 15th day, soils sampled on the 15th day; 27th day, soils sampled on the 27th day