| Literature DB >> 35126334 |
Tayte P Campbell1, Danielle E M Ulrich2, Jason Toyoda3, Jaron Thompson4, Brian Munsky4, Michaeline B N Albright2, Vanessa L Bailey1, Malak M Tfaily5, John Dunbar2.
Abstract
Rapid microbial growth in the early phase of plant litter decomposition is viewed as an important component of soil organic matter (SOM) formation. However, the microbial taxa and chemical substrates that correlate with carbon storage are not well resolved. The complexity of microbial communities and diverse substrate chemistries that occur in natural soils make it difficult to identify links between community membership and decomposition processes in the soil environment. To identify potential relationships between microbes, soil organic matter, and their impact on carbon storage, we used sand microcosms to control for external environmental factors such as changes in temperature and moisture as well as the variability in available carbon that exist in soil cores. Using Fourier transform ion cyclotron resonance mass spectrometry (FTICR-MS) on microcosm samples from early phase litter decomposition, we found that protein- and tannin-like compounds exhibited the strongest correlation to dissolved organic carbon (DOC) concentration. Proteins correlated positively with DOC concentration, while tannins correlated negatively with DOC. Through random forest, neural network, and indicator species analyses, we identified 42 bacterial and 9 fungal taxa associated with DOC concentration. The majority of bacterial taxa (26 out of 42 taxa) belonged to the phylum Proteobacteria while all fungal taxa belonged to the phylum Ascomycota. Additionally, we identified significant connections between microorganisms and protein-like compounds and found that most taxa (12/14) correlated negatively with proteins indicating that microbial consumption of proteins is likely a significant driver of DOC concentration. This research links DOC concentration with microbial production and/or decomposition of specific metabolites to improve our understanding of microbial metabolism and carbon persistence.Entities:
Keywords: DOC; FTICR mass spectrometry; bacteria; fungi; metabolites; microbial communities
Year: 2022 PMID: 35126334 PMCID: PMC8811196 DOI: 10.3389/fmicb.2021.799014
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Microbiol ISSN: 1664-302X Impact factor: 5.640
Forty-two bacterial taxonomic features consistently associated with DOC concentration in random forest (RF), neural network (NN), and indicator species (IS) analyses (n = 349).
| OTU | Phyla | Order | Family | Genus | RF Importance | NN Importance | IS stat | IS | IS. DOC group |
| OTU_188 | Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Nocardioidaceae | Aeromicrobium | 0.014 | −0.423 | 0.6 | 0.03 | Low |
| OTU_179 | Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Microbacteriaceae | Agromyces (67%) | 0.043 | −0.457 | 0.519 | 0.02 | Low |
| OTU_201 | Actinobacteria | Solirubrobacterales | Conexibacteraceae | Conexibacter | 0.045 | −0.573 | 0.689 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_53 | Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Nocardiaceae | Rhodococcus | 0.062 | −0.577 | 0.753 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_150 | Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Microbacteriaceae | Subtercola (10%) | 0.315 | −0.62 | 0.81 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_92 | Actinobacteria | Actinomycetales | Nocardiaceae | Williamsia | 0.164 | −0.583 | 0.766 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_93 | Bacteroidetes | Sphingobacteriales | Chitinophagaceae | Chitinophaga | 0.144 | −0.591 | 0.694 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_125 | Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriales | Flavobacteriaceae | Flavobacterium | 0.022 | −0.752 | 0.632 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_157 | Bacteroidetes | Flavobacteriales | Flavobacteriaceae | Moheibacter | 0.017 | −0.525 | 0.548 | 0.015 | Low |
| OTU_249 | Bacteroidetes | Sphingobacteriales | Chitinophagaceae | Taibaiella | 0.015 | −0.644 | 0.556 | 0.02 | Low |
| OTU_107 | Firmicutes | Bacillales | Paenibacillaceae | Paenibacillus | 0.018 | −0.441 | 0.697 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_210 | Planctomycetes | Planctomycetales | Planctomycetaceae | Pirellula (44%) | 0.012 | −0.71 | 0.55 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_3 | Proteobacteria | Burkholderiales | Alcaligenaceae | Achromobacter | 0.045 | −0.591 | 0.738 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_12 | Proteobacteria | Caulobacterales | Caulobacteraceae | Caulobacter | 0.316 | −0.624 | 0.769 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_2512 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales | Pseudomonadaceae | Cellvibrio | 0.023 | −0.448 | 0.416 | 0.01 | Low |
| OTU_96 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales | Pseudomonadaceae | Cellvibrio | 0.017 | −0.462 | 0.68 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_55 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | Devosia | 1 | −1 | 0.819 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_574 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Hyphomicrobiaceae | Devosia | 0.055 | −0.462 | 0.763 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_379 | Proteobacteria | Gammaproteobacteria | Halioglobus (51%) | Halioglobus (51%) | 0.023 | −0.673 | 0.598 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_70 | Proteobacteria | Xanthomonadales | Xanthomonadaceae | Luteimonas | 0.024 | 0.515 | 0.563 | 0 | High |
| OTU_1452 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Aurantimonadaceae | Martelella (61%) | 0.123 | −0.595 | 0.697 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_40 | Proteobacteria | Burkholderiales | Oxalobacteraceae | Massilia | 0.033 | −0.463 | 0.728 | 0.03 | Low |
| OTU_129 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Methylobacteriaceae | Methylobacterium | 0.018 | 0.46 | 0.551 | 0 | High |
| OTU_224 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Bradyrhizobiaceae (62%) | Nitrobacter (23%) | 0.067 | −0.774 | 0.689 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_78 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Bradyrhizobiaceae | Nitrobacter (47%) | 0.018 | −0.596 | 0.613 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_85 | Proteobacteria | Sphingomonadales | Sphingomonadaceae | Novosphingobium | 0.04 | −0.636 | 0.686 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_39 | Proteobacteria | Bdellovibrionales | Bacteriovoracaceae | Peredibacter | 0.033 | −0.756 | 0.723 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_22 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Phyllobacteriaceae | Phyllobacterium | 0.032 | 0.509 | 0.729 | 0.04 | High |
| OTU_3824 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Brucellaceae | Pseudochrobactrum | 0.014 | −0.561 | 0.552 | 0.03 | Low |
| OTU_572 | Proteobacteria | Burkholderiales | Oxalobacteraceae | Pseudoduganella | 0.013 | −0.495 | 0.411 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_122 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Xanthobacteraceae (65%) | Pseudolabrys (63%) | 0.06 | −0.848 | 0.781 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_1 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales | Pseudomonadaceae | Pseudomonas | 0.038 | 0.475 | 0.8 | 0 | High |
| OTU_3002 | Proteobacteria | Pseudomonadales | Pseudomonadaceae | Pseudomonas (37%) | 0.014 | −0.432 | 0.638 | 0.005 | Low |
| OTU_11 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Rhizobiaceae | Rhizobium | 0.022 | −0.85 | 0.805 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_6 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Rhizobiaceae | Rhizobium | 0.48 | −0.75 | 0.852 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_273 | Proteobacteria | Myxococcales | Sandaracinaceae | Sandaracinus | 0.023 | −0.689 | 0.597 | 0.02 | Low |
| OTU_29 | Proteobacteria | Rhodospirillales | Rhodospirillaceae | Skermanella | 0.046 | 0.592 | 0.778 | 0 | High |
| OTU_99 | Proteobacteria | Rhizobiales | Rhizobiales_incertae_sedis (27%) | Variibacter (22%) | 0.016 | −0.628 | 0.763 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_109 | Verrucomicrobia | Verrucomicrobiales | Verrucomicrobiaceae | Luteolibacter | 0.037 | −0.57 | 0.661 | 0.01 | Low |
| OTU_34 | Verrucomicrobia | Verrucomicrobiales | Verrucomicrobiaceae | Luteolibacter | 0.056 | −0.814 | 0.813 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_397 | Verrucomicrobia | Opitutales | Opitutaceae | Opitutus | 0.031 | −0.772 | 0.622 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_198 | Verrucomicrobia | Verrucomicrobiales | Verrucomicrobiaceae | Roseimicrobium | 0.019 | −0.718 | 0.673 | 0 | Low |
Confidence scores below the cutoff are given in parentheses. The lowest taxonomic level above the 70% cutoff score was used for all downstream analyses.
Nine fungal taxonomic features consistently associated with DOC concentration were determined from random forest (RF), neural network (NN), and indicator species (IS) analyses.
| OTU | Phyla | Order | Family | Genus | RF importance | NN importance | IS stat | IS | IS DOC group |
| OTU_18 | Ascomycota | Eurotiales | Trichocomaceae |
| 0.491 | 0.734 | 0.686 | 0 | High |
| OTU_1 | Ascomycota | Eurotiales | Trichocomaceae | 1 | −0.766 | 0.778 | 0.02 | Low | |
| OTU_780 | Ascomycota | Eurotiales | Trichocomaceae |
| 0.62 | −0.748 | 0.722 | 0 | Low |
| OTU_20 | Ascomycota | Hypocreales | Nectriaceae |
| 0.405 | 0.876 | 0.763 | 0.01 | High |
| OTU_325 | Ascomycota | Hypocreales | Nectriaceae |
| 0.238 | 0.741 | 0.664 | 0 | High |
| OTU_1212 | Ascomycota | Pleosporales | Pleosporaceae |
| 0.162 | 1 | 0.603 | 0.015 | High |
| OTU_7 | Ascomycota | Pleosporales | Pleosporaceae |
| 0.842 | 0.764 | 0.758 | 0.04 | High |
| OTU_24 | Ascomycota | Pleosporales | Sporormiaceae | 0.362 | 0.963 | 0.559 | 0 | High | |
| OTU_178 | Ascomycota | Incertae sedis | Batistiaceae |
| 0.157 | −0.783 | 0.468 | 0 | Low |
We used a confidence score cutoff of 70% for taxonomic assignment for each OTU and percentages are given in parentheses for confidence levels below the cutoff. We used the lowest taxonomic level that was above the 70% cutoff score for all downstream analyses (n = 377).
FIGURE 1Biplot analysis indicates that high and low DOC groups are enriched with different FTICR compound classes (PERMANOVA, F = 46.46, R2 = 0.27, P = 0.001; ANOSIM, R = 0.45, P = 0.001). Ellipses indicate 95% confidence intervals (n = 125 samples).
FIGURE 2The DOC pool is chemically diverse, and the high and low DOC groups contain distinct compounds. Van Krevelen plots of compounds found in all samples categorized by compound class (A) and compounds found in high DOC, low DOC, and both DOC groups (B).
FIGURE 3Proteins and tannins are the compound classes most strongly correlated with DOC concentration. Spearman correlation coefficients (R), R2-values, and p-values are shown.
FIGURE 4The majority of bacterial OTUs that are associated with high or low DOC are negatively correlated with protein. Stacked barplots indicate the number of bacterial OTUs that correlated negatively (left barplots) or positively with protein (right barplots) and their association with either high or low DOC based on indicator species analysis is shown at (A) phyla, (B) class, and (C) order levels.
FIGURE 5Network diagram demonstrating that interactions between microbial taxa, proteins, and DOC are in accordance with the machine-learning assignments for microorganisms in terms of DOC concentration. Borders around taxa indicate whether they are associated with high DOC (red) or low DOC (blue). Bacterial taxa are indicated by rectangular borders and fungal taxa are indicated by oval borders. Black borders indicate DOC and protein compounds.