| Literature DB >> 32297018 |
Kuo Huang1, Qipeng Jiang1, Liehua Liu1, Shuting Zhang1, Chaoli Liu1, Haitao Chen2, Wei Ding1, Yongqiang Zhang3.
Abstract
Root-knot nematode (RKN) disease is a soil-borne disease. However, most studies on RKN have focused on the screening of agents and the cultivation of resistant varieties, and reports on the interaction of RKNs with soil microorganisms are few. In this study, we performed Illumina high-throughput sequencing to analyze diseased and healthy soil and the microbial-community changes in rhizosphere soil after microbial treatment (Pseudomonas flurescens, Bacillus subtilis, Paecolomyces lilacinus). Results showed significant differences in the bacterial community richness and diversity between diseased and healthy soil and the presence of different microbial species. After treatment, the richness and diversity of microbial communities in soil, as well as the number and incidence of second-stage juvenile of RKNs, decreased. Through linear discriminant analysis effect size, Pearson correlation, and Venn diagram analysis, we screened five genera that were closely related to disease occurrence, among which Pseudomonas was most related to disease inhibition. Our results suggested that the occurrence of tobacco RKN was related to changes in soil microbial communities, and that the interactions among Pseudomonas, Bryobacter, Variibacter, Coniochaeta, and Metarhizium affected the health of rhizosphere soil.Entities:
Keywords: Microbial community; Pseudomonas; Root-knot nematode; Soil-borne disease
Year: 2020 PMID: 32297018 PMCID: PMC7158972 DOI: 10.1186/s13568-020-01006-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: AMB Express ISSN: 2191-0855 Impact factor: 3.298
Fig. 1Bacterial (a) and fungal (b) community composition at the level of the diseased soil (D) and healthy soil (H)
Bacterial and fungal α-diversity index of different samples
| Samples | OTUs (97%) | Chao index | Shannon index |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | |||
| D | 1143.44 ± 31.65a | 3574.26 ± 81.95a | 6.26 ± 0.04a |
| H | 1474.67 ± 13.33b | 4279.61 ± 171.97b | 6.46 ± 0.04b |
| Fungi | |||
| D | 85.78 ± 1.69a | 192.42 ± 7.68a | 2.85 ± 0.04a |
| H | 84.33 ± 1.45a | 191.36 ± 9.25a | 2.76 ± 0.04a |
D = diseased soil, H = healthy soil. Values are expressed as the mean ± standard error. Means followed by the same letter for a given factor are not significantly different (P < 0.05; Tukey’s honest significant difference test)
Fig. 2D and H β-diversity analyses: a bacterial PCoA analysis; b fungal PCoA analysis. XC1 ~ 9 are duplicates of D; HJ1 ~ 3 are duplicates of H
Fig. 3LEfSe cladogram of the aggregated groups of D and H. A range of bacterium (a) and fungus (b) taxa from phylum to genus level was associated with D (red) and H (green) (α = 0.05, LDA > 2.0, the size of circles is proportional to each taxon’s mean relative abundance). The yellow circles represent the absence of significantly different taxa
Fig. 4Bacterial (a) and fungal (b) community composition after treatment with biocontrol agents: Bacillus subtilis (Bs), Pseudomonas fluorescens (Pf), and Paecilomyces lilacinus (Pl); the untreated diseased soil (P_D) was set as control
Bacterial and fungal α-diversity indices of different samples after treatment with biocontrol agents
| Samples | OTUs (97%) | Chao index | Shannon index |
|---|---|---|---|
| Bacteria | |||
| Bs | 2009.33 ± 104.95a | 2898.44 ± 220.29a | 5.65 ± 0.11a |
| Pf | 2105.67 ± 43.46a | 2968.13 ± 45.00a | 5.81 ± 0.05a |
| Pl | 2437.33 ± 81.72b | 3660.34 ± 238.42b | 5.87 ± 0.08a |
| P_D | 2549.67 ± 99.63b | 3731.33 ± 135.10b | 6.31 ± 0.08b |
| Fungi | |||
| Bs | 137.67 ± 3.71a | 168.49 ± 3.88a | 2.08 ± 0.17a |
| Pf | 142.00 ± 2.08a | 164.46 ± 2.07a | 2.62 ± 0.05b |
| Pl | 163.33 ± 5.24b | 203.70 ± 7.03b | 3.11 ± 0.13b |
| P_D | 198.33 ± 7.84c | 240.06 ± 11.47c | 2.77 ± 0.04b |
Fig. 5β-diversity analysis after treatment: a bacterial hierarchical clustering analysis; b fungal hierarchical clustering analysis. Numbers 1 to 3 refer to the duplicates of each treatment
Fig. 6Population of the second-stage juvenile of RKN (J2) per treatment (100 g of rhizosphere soil)
Fig. 7RKN incidence in the field
Correlation between J2 and bacterial community at the genus level, and relative abundance (%) in H and D
| Genus | H | D | r | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0.17 ± 0.01a | 0.02 ± 0.00b | − 0.8588 | 0.0003 | |
| 0.15 ± 0.01a | 0.01 ± 0.00b | − 0.8514 | 0.0004 | |
| 0.35 ± 0.04a | 0.08 ± 0.01b | − 0.8249 | 0.0010 | |
| 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | − 0.8225 | 0.0010 | |
| 1.99 ± 0.16a | 1.28 ± 0.10b | 0.7853 | 0.0025 | |
| 0.13 ± 0.02a | 0.13 ± 0.01a | − 0.7843 | 0.0025 | |
| 1.82 ± 0.02a | 0.44 ± 0.06b | − 0.7739 | 0.0031 | |
| 0.68 ± 0.04a | 0.10 ± 0.01b | − 0.7695 | 0.0034 | |
| 1.43 ± 0.06a | 2.23 ± 0.15b | 0.7367 | 0.0063 | |
| 0.82 ± 0.03a | 3.02 ± 0.27b | 0.7338 | 0.0066 | |
| 2.50 ± 0.11a | 0.49 ± 0.05b | − 0.7319 | 0.0068 | |
| 0.37 ± 0.03a | 1.21 ± 0.11b | 0.7155 | 0.0089 | |
| 0.14 ± 0.02a | 0.60 ± 0.05b | − 0.6760 | 0.0158 | |
| 0.05 ± 0.01a | 0.00 ± 0.00b | − 0.6587 | 0.0198 | |
| 0.23 ± 0.02a | 0.01 ± 0.00b | − 0.6412 | 0.0246 | |
| 0.73 ± 0.03a | 1.73 ± 0.12b | 0.6128 | 0.0341 |
Correlation between J2 and the fungal community at genus level, and relative abundance (%) in H and D
| Genus | H | D | r | P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5.47 ± 0.33a | 0.96 ± 0.04b | 0.8248 | 0.0010 | |
| 0.57 ± 0.03a | 0.29 ± 0.02b | 0.8245 | 0.0010 | |
| 1.30 ± 0.03a | 2.35 ± 0.09b | 0.7698 | 0.0034 | |
| 0.52 ± 0.09a | 0.28 ± 0.02a | 0.7579 | 0.0042 | |
| 0.36 ± 0.02a | 0.20 ± 0.03b | 0.7422 | 0.0057 | |
| 0.00 ± 0.00a | 0.00 ± 0.00a | − 0.6195 | 0.0317 | |
| 0.01 ± 0.00a | 1.75 ± 0.10a | − 0.6159 | 0.0330 | |
| 0.27 ± 0.02a | 7.52 ± 0.11b | 0.6157 | 0.0330 | |
| 0.02 ± 0.00a | 0.07 ± 0.00a | 0.6048 | 0.0372 |
Fig. 8Differential microbial comparison. A = Differential microorganisms in diseased soil. B = Differential microorganisms associated with J2 after treatment. C = Differential microorganisms in healthy soil