| Literature DB >> 32607286 |
Huanhuan Gao1,2, Xiangtian Yin1, Xilong Jiang1, Hongmei Shi1, Yang Yang1, Chaoping Wang1, Xiaoyan Dai1,2, Yingchun Chen1, Xinying Wu1.
Abstract
As a polymicrobial disease, sour rot decreases grape berry yield and wine quality. The diversity of microbial communities in sour rot-affected grapes depends on the cultivation site, but the microbes responsible for this disease in eastern coastal China, has not been reported. To identify the microbes that cause sour grape rot in this important grape-producing region, the diversity and abundance of bacteria and fungi were assessed by metagenomic analysis and cultivation-dependent techniques. A total of 15 bacteria and 10 fungi were isolated from sour rot-affected grapes. High-throughput sequencing of PCR-amplicons generated from diseased grapes revealed 1343 OTUs of bacteria and 1038 OTUs of fungi. Proteobacteria and Firmicutes were dominant phyla among the 19 bacterial phyla identified. Ascomycota was the dominant fungal phylum and the fungi Issatchenkia terricola, Colletotrichum viniferum, Hanseniaspora vineae, Saprochaete gigas, and Candida diversa represented the vast majority ofmicrobial species associated with sour rot-affected grapes. An in vitro spoilage assay confirmed that four of the isolated bacteria strains (two Cronobacter species, Serratia marcescens and Lysinibacillus fusiformis) and five of the isolated fungi strains (three Aspergillus species, Alternaria tenuissima, and Fusarium proliferatum) spoiled grapes. These microorganisms, which appear responsible for spoiling grapes in eastern China, appear closely related to microbes that cause this plant disease around the world. ©2020 Gao et al.Entities:
Keywords: Bacteria; Fungus; Grape; High-throughput sequencing; Pathogenicity
Year: 2020 PMID: 32607286 PMCID: PMC7315622 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.9376
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PeerJ ISSN: 2167-8359 Impact factor: 2.984
Sequence information of bacterium and fungi in sour rot-affected grapes.
| Group | Sample | Number of raw reads | Mean length of raw reads | Number of clean reads | Mean length of clean reads | Number of filtered reads |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 16S rDNA | 1 | 56,220 | 447 | 54,080 | 410 | 38,313 |
| 2 | 63,599 | 458 | 61,916 | 418 | 39,939 | |
| 3 | 52,692 | 449 | 51,690 | 410 | 24,500 | |
| Mean ± SE | 57,504 ± 3,213 | 451 ± 3 | 55,895 ± 3,088 | 413 ± 3 | ||
| ITS | 1 | 80,740 | 317.03 | 80,628 | 2,746 | 79,658 |
| 2 | 71,362 | 332 | 71,281 | 2,886 | 71,160 | |
| 3 | 76,531 | 318 | 76,432 | 276 | 76,154 | |
| Mean ± SE | 76,211 ± 2,712 | 322 ± 5 | 76,114 ± 2,704 | 2,794 ± 5 |
Diversity indices of bacterium and fungi in sour rot-affected grapes.
| Parameters | Parameters | Bacterium (Mean ± SE) | Fungi (Mean ± SE) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Diversity indices | Shannon | 3 ± 1.3 E–01 | 220 E–2 ± 1.7 E–01 |
| ACE | 22,034 ± 2,927 | 32,667 ± 1385 | |
| Chao1 | 9,745 ± 1,430 | 10,779 ± 1476 | |
| Simpson | 1 E–01 ± 2 E–02 | 21 E-2 ± 4 E–02 | |
| OTUs number | 1,343 ± 283 | 1,039 ± 386 | |
Figure 1The bacterial community structure in sour rot-infected grapes based on 16S rDNA high-throughput sequencing.
(A) The bacterial community structure based on genus; (B) the bacterial community structure based on phylum.
Figure 2The fungal community structure in sour rot-affected grapes based on ITS high-throughput sequencing.
(A) The fungal community structure based on genus; (B) the fungal community structure based on phylum.
Phylogeny of microbes isolated from sour rot-affected grapes.
| Microorganism | Phylum | Species | Strain IDs | Accession numbers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bacterium | SRG1 |
| ||
| SRG2 |
| |||
| SRG3 |
| |||
| SRG4 |
| |||
| SRG5 |
| |||
| SRG6 |
| |||
| SRG7 |
| |||
| SRG8 |
| |||
| SRG9 |
| |||
| SRG10 |
| |||
| SRG11 |
| |||
| SRG12 |
| |||
| SRG13 |
| |||
| SRG14 |
| |||
| SRG15 |
| |||
| Fungus | SRG16 |
| ||
| SRG17 |
| |||
| SRG18 |
| |||
| SRG19 |
| |||
| SRG20 |
| |||
| SRG21 |
| |||
| SRG22 |
| |||
| SRG23 |
| |||
| SRG24 |
| |||
| SRG25 |
|
The physiological and biochemical characteristic of bacterium in sour rot-affected grape.
| Bacterium | Strain IDs | Gram staining | Spore staining | Bacterial motility | Catalase reaction | Methyl red test | Starch hydrolysis test | Benzpyrole test | V-P test |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SRG1 | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | ||
| SRG2 | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | ||
| SRG3 | – | – | + | – | – | – | + | ||
| SRG4 | – | + | + | – | – | – | + | ||
| SRG5 | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG6 | – | + | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG7 | + | + | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG8 | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG9 | + | – | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG10 | + | purple | + | + | – | + | – | – | |
| SRG11 | + | purple | + | + | – | + | – | + | |
| SRG12 | + | pink | + | + | – | + | – | – | |
| SRG13 | + | purple | + | + | – | + | – | + | |
| SRG14 | purple | + | + | – | + | – | + | ||
| SRG15 | + | purple | + | + | – | + | – | + |
Figure 3Colony morphology and the light mophology of the fungi in sour rot-affected grapes.
(A–E) represent the reverse side of colony morphology of Cladosporium oxysporum , Penicillium citrinum, Alternaria tenuissima, Saprochaete gigas, Fusarium proliferatum; (F–J) represent the front side of colony morphology of Cladosporium oxysporum, Penicillium citrinum, Alternaria tenuissima, Saprochaete gigas, Fusarium proliferatum; (K–O) represent the reverse side of colony morphology of P. georgiense, Aspergillus niger, Nigrospora sp., A. oryzae, A. aculeatus; (P–T) represent the font side of colony morphology of P. georgiense, Aspergillus niger, Nigrospora sp., A. oryzae, A. aculeatus. (U–DD) represent the light morphology of Cladosporium oxysporum, Alternaria tenuissima, Saprochaete gigas, Fusarium proliferatum, Nigrospora sp., Penicillium citrinum, P. georgiense, Aspergillus niger, A. oryzae, A. aculeatus.
Figure 4The pathogenicity of bacteria and fungi in healthy grape berries.
(A–AA) represent pathogenicity of sterile water, LB medium, Cladosporium oxysporum, Alternaria tenuissima, Saprochaete gigas, Fusarium proliferatum, Nigrospora sp., Penicillium citrinum, P. georgiense, Aspergillus niger, A. oryzae, A. aculeatus, Cronobacter malonaticus, C. sakazakii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acetobacter sp., Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter hormaechei, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Lactococcus garvieae, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lysinibacillus fusiformis, Lysinibacillus sp., Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, B. cereus, Bacillus sp.- 1, Bacillus sp.- 2 using the merged method; (BB–BBB) represent pathogenicity of sterile water, LB medium, Cladosporium oxysporum, Alternaria tenuissima, Saprochaete gigas, Fusarium proliferatum, Nigrospora sp., Penicillium citrinum, P. georgiense, Aspergillus niger, A. oryzae, A. aculeatus, Cronobacter malonaticus, C. sakazakii, Klebsiella pneumoniae, Acetobacter sp., Serratia marcescens, Enterobacter hormaechei, Staphylococcus saprophyticus, Lactococcus garvieae, Lactobacillus plantarum, Lysinibacillus fusiformis, Lysinibacillus sp., Bacillus amyloliquefaciens, B. cereus, Bacillus sp.- 1, Bacillus sp.- 2 using the separated method.
Figure 5The percentage of incidence of microorganism using merged (A) or separated (C) methods; McKinney index of microorganism using merged (B) or separated (D) methods.
Different letters in each figure indicate significant difference between microorganisms (one-way ANOVA; α = 0.05).