| Literature DB >> 32719697 |
Myriam Lorena Izarra1, Ana Luz Panta1, Carmen Rosa Maza1, Brenda Carina Zea1, Juan Cruzado1, Liliam Rosario Gutarra1, Cristina R Rivera1, David Ellis1, Jan Frederik Kreuze1.
Abstract
Bacterial microorganisms which are latent in in vitro cultures can limit the efficiency of in vitro methods for the conservation of genetic resources. In this study we screened 2,373 accessions from the in vitro sweetpotato germplasm collection of the International Potato Center in Lima, Peru for bacteria associated with plantlets in tissue culture through a combination of morphological methods and partial 16S rDNA sequencing. Bacteria were detected in 240 accessions (10% of the accessions screened) and we were able to isolate 184 different bacterial isolates from 177 different accessions. These corresponded to at least nineteen Operational Taxonomic Units (OTUs) of bacteria, belonging to the genera Sphingomonas, Bacillus, Paenibacillus, Methylobacterium, Brevibacterium, Acinetobacter, Microbacterium, Streptomyces, Staphylococcus, and Janibacter. Specific primers were developed for PCR based diagnostic tests that were able to rapidly detect these bacteria directly from tissue culture plants, without the need of microbial sub-culturing. Based on PCR screening the largest bacterial OTUs corresponded to a Paenibacillus sp. closely related to Paenibacillus taichungensis (41.67%), and Bacillus sp. closely related to Bacillus cereus (22.22%), and Bacillus pumilus (16.67%). Since in vitro plant genetic resources must be microbe-free for international distribution and use, any microbial presence is considered a contamination and therefore it is critical to clean all cultures of these latent-appearing bacteria. To accomplish this, plantlets from in vitro were transferred to soil, watered with Dimanin® (2 ml/l) weekly and then reintroduced into in vitro. Of the 191 accessions processed for bacterial elimination, 100% tested bacteria-free after treatment. It is suspected that these bacteria may be endosymbionts and some may be beneficial for the plants.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA; contamination; endogenous microbes; genetic resources; tissue culture
Year: 2020 PMID: 32719697 PMCID: PMC7350948 DOI: 10.3389/fpls.2020.00903
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Plant Sci ISSN: 1664-462X Impact factor: 5.753
FIGURE 1General scheme of the methodology applied at CIP for bacteria elimination in in vitro sweetpotato germplasm. The method consists of antimicrobial treatments in vitro, plant growth and antimicrobial treatment in the greenhouse and re-introduction into in vitro.
FIGURE 2(A) In vitro sweetpotato accession (CIP 420613) showing signs of bacterial contamination, (B) an example of morphology of isolated bacteria, and (C) PCR amplification of 16S rDNA gene segments with primers pA and pF (1,066 bp) [BC, background Control, H: PCR amplification of the bacteria, M: molecular weight marker (lambda phage DNA digested with PstI].
Distinctive phenotypic characteristics of the 184 strains isolated from in vitro cultures of Ipomoea batatas.
| A | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Dark yellow | 0.5 | − | Rods | + | − | +/+ | 2 |
| B | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Cream | 1.8 | + | Staphylococci | + | − | +/+ | 8 |
| C | Entire | − | Circular | Flat | Viscous | Cream−white | 8 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 29 |
| D | Undulate | + | Irregular | Flat | Viscous | White−gray | 2.5 | ± | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 85 |
| E | Entire | − | Circular | Flat | Viscous | Pink | 0.2 | − | Coccobacilli | + | + | −/− | 1 |
| F | Undulate | + | Irregular | Flat | Viscous | Dark yellow | 3 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 1 |
| G | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Yellow-cream | 1.1 | + | Rods | + | − | ± | 1 |
| H | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Yellow-cream | 2.5 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 12 |
| I | Entire | + | Circular | Flat | Viscous | Mustard | 2 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 4 |
| J | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Pale yellow | 0.5 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 23 |
| K | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | White | 2 | + | Rods | + | ± | +/+ | 1 |
| L | Entire | − | Circular | Convex | Dry | Yellow | 1.5 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 7 |
| M | Undulate | + | Irregular | Flat | Viscous | Leaden-white | 0.8 | + | Rods | + | + | +/+ | 2 |
| N | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Pale yellow | 1.2 | + | Rods | + | + | ± | 1 |
| O | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Pale yellow | 2.3 | ± | Coccobacilli | + | − | ± | 2 |
| P | Entire | + | Circular | Convex | Viscous | Yellowish white | 0.3 | + | Cocci | + | − | −/− | 4 |
| Q | Entire | − | Circular | Convex | Dry | Pale yellow | 2 | + | Filamentous | + | + | +/+ | 1 |
Identification of isolated bacteria based on sequence similarity of partial 16S sequences to the NCBI and RDP databases.
| 420278 | A | KF192619 | |||
| 420933 | KF192618 | ||||
| 400311 | B | KF192620 | |||
| 422567 | KF192621 | ||||
| 421426 | C | KF192608 | |||
| 420251 | D | KF192617 | |||
| 400108 | E | KF192614 | |||
| 442368 | F | KF192609 | |||
| 442536 | G | KF192612 | |||
| 420613 | H | KF192611 | |||
| 442507 | I | KT624615 | |||
| 402715 | J | KT624616 | |||
| 441180 | K | KF192610 | |||
| 400062 | L | Uncultured bacterium (100) | KF192613 | ||
| 400280 | M | KF192616 | |||
| 440199 | N | KF192615 | |||
| 421115 | O | KF192607 | |||
| 187002.1 | P | Uncultured bacterium (99) | Uncultured bacterium (99) | KF192623 | |
| 420405 | Q | KF192622 |
FIGURE 3A phylogenetic tree based on the 16S rDNA gene sequences from isolates determined in this study (shown underlined), and closely related 16S sequences from isolates available from RDP database. The tree was generated by Neighbor Joining method in Mega. Phylum groups: Firmicutes, Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, and Planctomycetes (out group).
Selected primers for the specific PCR amplification of bacterial 16S rDNA genes of different taxonomic groups.
| TACCGGATGATGACGAATGTCC | 539 | 47.5 | |
| ATACCAGTCCAGTCAGCCGCC | |||
| GGTTCAATAGTGAAAGACGGCCTTGC | 807 | 47 | |
| CTCAAGATTTGGTAAGGTT | |||
| GCGGCTTCGGCTGTCACTTATG | 657 | 61 | |
| GGTTTCCGCCCTTTAGTGCTGA | |||
| CGCTTGGGAGAGTAACTGCTCTC | 376 | 58 | |
| CTAGCACTCATCGTTTACGG | |||
| GGAATAACTCAGGGAAACTT | 668 | 52 | |
| CTGACCTGCAAGCAGGCCAACGG | |||
| AAAGCTGAAAGATGGTTTCGGCTA | 667 | 59 | |
| GCAGCACTAAAGGGCGGAAA | |||
| ATGGTTCAAGGATGAAAGACGGTTT | 464 | 43 | |
| TTTCCCAGTTTCCAATGACC | |||
| GTCTAATACCGGATACGACTG | 668 | 55 | |
| GAGAACGTGGAATGCCC | |||
| GTAAGGTTCTTCGCGTTGCTTCG | 857 | 63 | |
| AGACTGGGATAACTCCGGGAAA | |||
| CCCAGACTCTGGAATAAGCGC | 855 | 58 | |
| TTTCCGGTATATGTCAAGCC | |||
| GCTTTCTTCGCCTGAAGGAAG | 712 | 65 | |
| CCCAGGCGGAATGCTTAATGTGT | |||
| AGCTGCGCCACTAAAGCCTC | 760 | 61 | |
| CCACTAATAGGCAGATTCCTAAGCA | |||
| GGCGTCTAATACTGGATATGTGACGTG | 625 | 62.5 | |
| TCACGGAATCCGTGGAAAGGA | |||
| ACACTCTAGTCTGCCCGTACCCAC | 488 | 65 | |
| GCGCTGGAAACGGCGTCTAATACT | |||
| ACGGACAACGTGGAATGTTG | 656 | 60 | |
| TCACAGATGCCCGTGAAGGTCA |
Final classification of 180 bacteria isolated from in vitro cultures of Ipomoea batatas.
| A | 2 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0.56 | ||
| B | 8 | 7 | 3.89 | |
| 0 | 1 | 0.56 | ||
| C | 29 | 40 | 22.22 | |
| D | 82 | 75 | 41.67 | |
| E | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| F | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| G | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| H,I,J | 39 | 30 | 16.67 | |
| K | 1 | 3 | 1.67 | |
| L | 7 | 7 | 3.89 | |
| M | 2 | 5 | 2.78 | |
| N | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| O | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| P | 4 | 4 | 2.22 | |
| Q | 1 | 1 | 0.56 | |
| 100 |
Sensitivity of primers for detecting each bacterial group (OTU).
| F2R1 | 5 × 101 | 5 × 101 | |
| F2R1 | 4.55 × 104 | 4.55 × 106 | |
| F3R1 | 3.13 × 103 | 3.13 × 101 | |
| F2R1 | 5 | 5 × 102 | |
| F2R1 | 4.55 × 105 | 4.55 × 108 | |
| F1R1 | 5 × 102 | 5 × 103 | |
| F2R2 | 5 × 101 | 5 × 101 | |
| F3R1 | 4.76 × 103 | 4.76 × 105 | |
| F1R2 | 4.55 × 104 | 4.55 × 102 | |
| F3R4 | ND | ND | |
| F1R1 | 4.35 × 101 | 4.35 × 105 | |
| F3R1 | 5 × 102 | 5 × 106 | |
| F1R1 | 4.55 × 105 | 4.55 × 109 | |
| F2R2 | 3.33 × 107 | 3.33 × 109 | |
| F1R2 | 1.67 × 103 | 1.67 × 104 |