| Literature DB >> 35161398 |
Jaroslav Michalko1,2, Juraj Medo2, Peter Ferus1, Jana Konôpková1, Dominika Košútová1,3, Peter Hoťka1, Marek Barta4.
Abstract
Diverse communities of bacterial endophytes inhabit plant tissues, and these bacteria play important roles for plant growth and health. Cherry laurel (Prunus laurocerasus L.) is a broadleaf evergreen shrub that is widely grown in temperate zones for its ornamental and medicinal properties, however virtually nothing is known about its associated bacterial community. In this study, we analysed the matured one-year-old leaves of this plant using Illumina-based 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding to reveal the community structure of endophytic bacteria and understand its shifts during the seasonal transition from winter dormancy to a spring vegetative state. The overall community was composed of four dominant phyla (Proteobacteria, Actinobacteria, Firmicutes, Bacteroidetes). Corynebacterium, Acinetobacter, and Chryseobacterium genera were the most prevalent bacteria, comprising 13.3%, 6.9%, and 6.8% of the amplicon sequence variants (ASVs), respectively. The ASV richness and diversity increased significantly in May as compared to other sampling months (February, March, and April). We observed high variation in the overall community structure of endophytic bacteria among collection dates. The variation was only reflected by a few core community members, suggesting that the changes of the endophytic community during winter/spring seasonal transition are mostly associated with the less abundant community members. We identified biomarker taxa for late winter, mid spring, and late spring collection dates. This study is the first one to report on the diversity and composition of bacterial endophytes in the leaves of cherry laurel and its shifts across the dormancy-to-vegetative seasonal transition.Entities:
Keywords: 16S rRNA gene metabarcoding; biodiversity; cherry laurel; leaf endosphere; plant microbiome
Year: 2022 PMID: 35161398 PMCID: PMC8839770 DOI: 10.3390/plants11030417
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Phylum distribution of the amplicon sequencing variants (ASVs). Relative sequence abundance (RA) of prokaryotic phyla associated with leaf endosphere. Data for all leaf samples collected from the same shrub on the same collection date were pooled together. RA of phyla was calculated as the proportion of sequences belonging to particular phylum of all 16S rRNA sequences recovered from all samples.
Figure 2Heatmap of relative abundances of the top 41 prokaryotic genera associated with mature leaves of individual Prunus laurocerasus shrubs at different collection dates. Data for all leaf samples collected from the same shrub on the same collection date were pooled together. Rows are bacterial genera, and columns are individual shrubs. Color scale indicate taxa with a higher (darker colors) or lower (brighter colors) relative sequence abundance in each sample. Only those genera with a relative sequence abundance of 2% or higher in at least one shrub were included.
Figure 3Alpha diversity estimates of bacterial communities: (A) ASV richness estimates (number of observed amplicon sequencing variants; ASVs). (B) Pielou´s evenness estimates. (C) Shannon’s diversity indices. Box plots display the first (25%) and third (75%) quartiles, the median, the average (•), the maximum and minimum observed values, and extreme values (·) within each data set. Data were analysed by means of one-way ANOVAs and Tukey´s Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) post hoc comparisons. Significant differences (p < 0.05) across sampling months are indicated with lowercase letters.
Figure 4The amplicon sequencing variant (ASV) level of endophytic bacteria distribution in mature P. laurocerasus leaves across the collection dates. Venn diagram shows the number and relative abundance (%) of ASVs shared and unique among different sampling months.
Figure 5Nonmetric Multi-Dimensional Scaling (NMDS) of bacterial communities by individual shrubs and collection dates based on UniFrac distances. The different colors indicate the leaf collection dates; the shapes indicate shrubs, and each point represents an individual leaf.
Sampling date effect on bacterial community structures. For calculation, a pairwise comparison using PERMANOVA on a weighted UniFrac distance matrix was used.
| Collection date | 19 February | 7 March | 1 April | 18 April |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 19 February | ||||
| 7 March | 0.002 | |||
| 1 April | 0.001 | 0.162 | ||
| 18 April | 0.002 | 0.018 | 0.002 | |
| 4 May | 0.001 | 0.069 | 0.004 | 0.014 |
Fluctuations of the Prunus laurocerasus L. endophytic bacterial microbiome during the seasonal transition from winter dormancy to vegetative growth in fully developed leaves. Only core taxa, i.e., taxa occurring in >50% samples and with relative sequence abundance >1% are listed. The relative abundance (RA) of a given taxon is the number of sequences associated with that taxon over the total number of sequences in the dataset. Significant differences among collection dates according to Wilcoxon test (p < 0.05) are indicated in lower-cased letters.
| Phylum | Average RA percent (number of positive samples)p-value | Mean RA of all samples (%) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Class | 19.2. | 7.3. | 1.4. | 18.4. | 4.5. | ||||||
| Order | |||||||||||
| Family | |||||||||||
| Genus | |||||||||||
| ASV | |||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 18.9 (12)a | 23.8 (12)a | 27.0 (12)a | 22.5 (12)a | 14.4 (12)a | 21.3 | |||||
| Corynebacteriaceae | 13.2 (10)a | 16.2 (11)a | 16.0 (12)a | 12.7 (12)a | 8.5 (8)a | 13.3 | |||||
|
| 13.2 (10)a | 16.2 (11)a | 16.0 (12)a | 12.7 (12)a | 8.5 (8)a | 13.3 | |||||
| 0003 | 4.5 (7)ab | 6.5 (11)a | 10.0 (11)a | 6.4 (10)ab | 2.9 (6)b | 6.0 | |||||
| Micrococcaceae | 2.4 (7)ab | 4.8 (10)a | 1.7 (7)ab | 2.2 (11)a | 1.1 (6)b | 2.4 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 8.8 (11)ab | 10.7(12) ab | 8.6 (11)a | 10.5(12)ab | 13.9 (12)b | 10.5 | |||||
| Flavobacteriaceae | 8.8 (11)ab | 10.7 (12)ab | 8.6 (11)a | 10.5(12)ab | 13.9 (12)b | 10.5 | |||||
|
| 3.2 (9)ab | 2.6 (9)ab | 2.8 (9)ab | 1.1 (8)a | 4.4 (12)b | 2.8 | |||||
| 0008 | 3.2 (9)ab | 2.6 (9)ab | 2.8 (9)ab | 1.1 (8)a | 4.4 (12)b | 2.8 | |||||
|
| 5.0 (10)a | 6.2 (12)ab | 5.8 (10)ab | 7.7 (12)ab | 9.4 (12)b | 6.8 | |||||
| 0002 | 3.9 (10)a | 5.4 (12)ab | 5.4 (10)ab | 6.9 (11)ab | 8.6 (12)b | 6.0 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 4.8 (9)a | 5.5 (12)ab | 8.2 (12)b | 7.1 (12)ab | 4.6 (12)ab | 6.1 | |||||
| Staphylococcaceae | 4.2 (8)ab | 4.2 (12)ab | 7.0 (12)a | 4.8 (12)ab | 3.1 (11)b | 4.7 | |||||
|
| 4.1 (8)ab | 4.1 (12)ab | 6.9 (12)a | 4.8 (12)ab | 3.1 (11)b | 4.6 | |||||
| 0006 | 4.1 (8)ab | 4.1 (12)ab | 6.9 (12)a | 4.8 (12)ab | 3.1 (11)b | 4.6 | |||||
|
| 9.9 (12)ab | 16.6 (12)a | 12.4 (12)a | 6.0 (12)b | 8.9 (12)ab | 10.8 | |||||
| Streptococcaceae | 7.3 (11)a | 15.0 (12)a | 11.3 (12)a | 3.7 (12)b | 8.1 (12)a | 9.1 | |||||
|
| 4.3 (11)ab | 7.8 (12)ab | 7.0 (12)a | 2.5 (12)b | 6.2 (12)a | 5.5 | |||||
| 0004 | 4.2 (11)ab | 7.6 (12)a | 6.7 (12)a | 2.3 (12)b | 6.1 (12)a | 5.4 | |||||
|
| 3.0 (11)ab | 7.2 (12)a | 4.3 (12)a | 1.3 (9)b | 2.0 (12)b | 3.6 | |||||
| 0014 | 0.7 (7)ab | 4.7 (12)a | 1.7 (9)ab | 0.8 (8)b | 0.5 (7)b | 1.7 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 2.5 (9)a | 8.5 (12)ab | 7.0 (12)b | 2.6 (12)a | 3.9 (11)a | 4.9 | |||||
| Clostridiales_Incertae Sedis XI | 1.0 (7)a | 2.9 (11)ab | 3.3 (12)b | 2.1 (10)ab | 0.9 (11)a | 2.0 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 1.1 (9)a | 0.9 (9)a | 1.1 (9)ab | 4.6 (11)c | 2.2 (12)bc | 2.0 | |||||
|
| 2.7 (10)a | 0.8 (9)ab | 0.9 (8)b | 2.3 (9)ab | 0.9 (8)b | 1.5 | |||||
| Sphingomonadaceae | 2.6 (10)a | 0.8 (9)ab | 0.9 (7)b | 1.9 (9)ab | 0.9 (8)b | 1.4 | |||||
|
| 1.8 (9)a | 0.6 (9)a | 0.9 (7)a | 1.3 (7)a | 0.8 (8)a | 1.1 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 11.9 (12)a | 4.7 (12)ab | 3.9 (12)b | 4.4 (12)ab | 5.7 (12)ab | 6.1 | |||||
| Comamonadaceae | 2.6 (11)ab | 3.5 (12)a | 2.9 (12)ab | 3.5 (12)ab | 1.7 (12)b | 2.9 | |||||
|
| 1.5 (9)ab | 2.6 (12)a | 1.7 (12)ab | 2.8 (10)ab | 1.4 (11)b | 2.0 | |||||
| 0016 | 1.5 (9)ab | 2.6 (12)a | 1.7 (12)ab | 2.8 (10)ab | 1.4 (11)b | 2.0 | |||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |||||
|
| 3.1 (12)ab | 3.6 (11)ab | 2.4 (10)a | 3.9 (12)ab | 4.8 (12)b | 3.6 | |||||
| Enterobacteriaceae | 3.1 (12)ab | 3.6 (11)ab | 2.4 (10)a | 3.9 (12)ab | 4.8 (12)b | 3.6 | |||||
|
| 2.4 (12)ab | 2.2 (9)ab | 1.6 (10)a | 3.2 (12)ab | 4.0 (12)b | 2.7 | |||||
| 0010 | 2.4 (12)ab | 2.2 (9)ab | 1.6 (10)a | 3.2 (12)ab | 4.0 (12)b | 2.7 | |||||
|
| 16.6 (12)ab | 13.4 (12)ab | 10.1 (12)a | 11.6 (12)a | 19.2 (12)b | 14.2 | |||||
| Moraxellaceae | 11.6 (12)ab | 8.5 (12)ab | 6.6 (12)a | 6.8 (12)a | 14.1 (12)b | 9.5 | |||||
|
| 8.7 (12)ab | 7.2 (12)a | 3.9 (11)b | 6.3 (12)ab | 8.5 (12)a | 6.9 | |||||
| 0007 | 6.0 (10)ab | 3.8 (12)a | 1.3 (9)b | 3.7 (11)ab | 4.1 (12)a | 3.8 | |||||
| 0015 | 1.8 (12)a | 2.2 (10)a | 1.9 (9)a | 1.7 (7)a | 1.4 (8)a | 1.8 | |||||
| Pseudomonadaceae | 5.0 (12)a | 4.9 (12)a | 3.3 (12)a | 4.8 (12)a | 5.1 (12)a | 4.6 | |||||
|
| 5.0 (12)a | 4.9 (12)a | 3.3 (12)a | 4.8 (12)a | 5.1 (12)a | 4.6 | |||||
| 0017 | 2.9 (10)ab | 2.1 (12)a | 1.6 (10)ab | 1.1 (9)b | 2.8 (10)ab | 2.1 | |||||
| 0021 | 1.4 (8)a | 1.3 (11)a | 0.8 (8)a | 1.4 (11)a | 1.3 (12)a | 1.2 | |||||
|
| 3.6 (10)abc | 2.1 (10)ab | 1.7 (11)a | 5.7 (11)bc | 6.3 (12)c | 3.9 | |||||
| Xanthomonadaceae | 3.6 (10)ab | 2.1 (10)a | 1.7 (11)a | 5.5 (11)ab | 5.9 (12)b | 3.8 | |||||
|
| 3.1 (8)ab | 1.9 (10)a | 1.4 (10)a | 4.5 (9)ab | 4.9 (12)b | 3.2 | |||||
| 0011 | 3.1 (8)ab | 1.8 (9)a | 1.4 (10)a | 2.8 (9)ab | 4.8 (12)b | 2.8 | |||||
Figure 6Biomarker taxa analysis of bacterial endophytic community members in mature P. laurocerasus leaves. Histogram shows LDA scores computed for differentially abundant bacterial taxa and identifies which taxa among all those detected as statistically differentially abundant explain the greatest differences between collection dates. No differentially abundant taxa were identified for the early spring (7 March) collection date.