| Literature DB >> 35273638 |
Tianyan Xie1,2,3,4,5, Shuo Shen1,2,3,4,5, Yufan Hao1,2,3,4,5, Wei Li1,2,3,4,5, Jian Wang1,2,3,4,5.
Abstract
Effective storage of potatoes is very important for the food industry. Given the problems involving rotten potatoes and low quality during storage, harvested potatoes from the main potato-producing areas in the Qinghai Plateau were treated by selection and air drying (Group "A") and the others were stored directly as controls (Group "C"). Then, the microbial community structure and diversity of diseased potato tubers from four main production areas were analyzed by high-throughput sequencing technology in different storage stages. The results showed that the community composition and diversity of microbes in different regions and storage periods were different, and the dominant fungi in diseased potato tubers were Boeremia in Huangyuan (HY), Maying (MY) and Zhongling (ZL) and Apiotrichum in Huangzhong (HZ) at the genus level. The dominant bacterial genus was Pseudomonas, but its abundance varied in samples from different regions and storage periods. In the analysis of indicator species, there were some common species and endemic species in each region and period, and the period with the largest number of different species was the third period. Among the four storage periods, the region with the largest number of different species was HZ. Some fungi, especially Fusarium and other potato pathogens, were more abundant in control Group "C" than in treatment Group "A." In the diversity analysis, the α diversity of fungi in Group "C" was higher than that in Group "A," but the α diversity of bacteria in Group "A" was higher than that in Group "C," and there was no obvious regularity with storage time. The β diversity varied significantly among different regions. In addition, through functional prediction analysis, it was found that a plant pathogen was one of the main nutritional types of fungi, which indicated that treatment by selection and drying could significantly reduce phytopathogenic microbe and other microorganisms and could be used as an effective measure for potato storage compared with the prevention and control by drugs that can cause environmental pollution. Further analysis of co-occurrence network showed that pathogenic fungi Fusarium was negatively correlated with pathogenic bacteria Erwinia, and there is also a negative correlation between pathogens and antagonistic microorganisms indicated that there were various symbiotic relationships among microorganisms in diseased potatoes. This study may provide a theoretical basis for biological control of potato cellar diseases and the maintenance of potato quality during long-term storage.Entities:
Keywords: high-throughput sequencing; microbial community; phytopathogenic microbe; potato storage; pre-storage treatment
Year: 2022 PMID: 35273638 PMCID: PMC8902257 DOI: 10.3389/fgene.2022.818940
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Genet ISSN: 1664-8021 Impact factor: 4.599
Information on samples of diseased potato tubers during storage in different regions.
| Region | Geographic coordinates | Altitude (m) | Size of the cellar (m2) | Treatment | Temperature, humidity and samples of each period | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Period 1 | Period 2 | Period 3 | Period 4 | |||||||||||||
| T (°C) | H (%) | Samples | T (°C) | H (%) | Samples | T (°C) | H (%) | Samples | T (°C) | H (%) | Samples | |||||
| HY | 101°04′12″E | 3,119 | 150 | Air Drying control | 6.00 | 85.00 | none | 5.10 | 99.00 | HY-2-A | 2.90 | 99.00 | HY-3-A | 4.30 | 99.00 | HY-4-A |
| 36°73′31″N | HY-1-C | HY-2-C | HY-3-C | HY-4-C | ||||||||||||
| MY | 102°66′23″E | 2,773 | 60 | Air Drying control | 5.10 | 86.00 | none | 2.00 | 90.00 | MY-2-A | 0.30 | 98.00 | MY-3-A | 3.80 | 99.00 | MY-4-A |
| 36°55′82″N | MY-1-C | MY-2-C | MY-3-C | MY-4-C | ||||||||||||
| ZL | 102°51′21″E | 2,685 | 90 | Air Drying control | 5.70 | 80.00 | none | 4.20 | 99.00 | ZL-2-A | 2.40 | 99.00 | ZL-3-A | 4.00 | 99.00 | ZL-4-A |
| 36°54′70″N | ZL-1-C | ZL-2-C | ZL-3-C | ZL-4-C | ||||||||||||
| HZ | 101°37′15″E | 2,610 | 300 | control | 5.50 | 88.00 | HZ-1-C | 2.10 | 99.00 | HZ-2-C | −1.40 | 99.00 | HZ-3-C | 4.90 | 99.00 | HZ-4-C |
| 36°40′44″N | ||||||||||||||||
FIGURE 1The stacked bar plot of the community composition and relative abundances of representative fungal (A) and bacteria (B) on the phylum level of communities detected in the samples of diseased potato tubers.
FIGURE 2The stacked bar plot of the community composition and relative abundances of representative fungal (A) and bacteria (B) on the genus level of communities detected in the samples of diseased potato tubers.
FIGURE 3Venn Analysis of different species between the treatment group “A” and control group “C” [(A) for fungi and (B) for bacteria], among regions in group “A” [(C) for fungi and (D) for bacteria] and in group “C” [(E) for fungi and (F) for bacteria] at the genus level.
FIGURE 4The sample with the most biomarkers between Group “A” and Group “C” [(A) for fungi and (B) for bacteria], among storage periods [(C) for fungi and (D) for bacteria] and different regions [(E) for fungi and (F) for bacteria].
FIGURE 5The relative abundances heatmap of the top 50 genera of fungi (A) and bacteria (B).
FIGURE 6The observed-species index of Alpha diversity of fungi (A) and bacteria (B).
The test of observed-species index among groups of Alpha diversity of fungi and bacteria.
| Test | Group | Fungal | Bacterial | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pvalue | Significant | Pvalue | Significant | ||
| Welch’s | HY-2-A-VS-HY-2-C | 0.01 | * | 0.12 | |
| HY-3-A-VS-HY-3-C | 0.15 | 0.71 | |||
| HY-4-A-VS-HY-4-C | 0.88 | 0.14 | |||
| MY-2-A-VS-MY-2-C | 0.39 | 0.01 | ** | ||
| MY-3-A-VS-MY-3-C | 0.18 | 0.05 | * | ||
| MY-4-A-VS-MY-4-C | 0.37 | 0.74 | |||
| ZL-2-A-VS-ZL-2-C | 0.30 | 0.53 | |||
| ZL-3-A-VS-ZL-3-C | 0.05 | * | 0.50 | ||
| ZL-4-A-VS-ZL-4-C | 0.02 | * | 0.32 | ||
| Kruskal–Wallis test | HY-1-C-VS-HY-2-C-VS-HY-3-C-VS-HY-4-C | 0.01 | ** | 0.01 | ** |
| MY-1-C-VS-MY-2-C-VS-MY-3-C-VS-MY-4-C | 0.05 | 0.11 | |||
| ZL-1-C-VS-ZL-2-C-VS-ZL-3-C-VS-ZL-4-C | 0.10 | 0.03 | * | ||
| HZ-1-C-VS-HZ-2-C-VS-HZ-3-C-VS-HZ-4-C | 0.09 | 0.10 | |||
| HY-1-C-VS-MY-1-C-VS-ZL-1-C-VS-HZ-1-C | 0.02 | * | 0.02 | * | |
| HY-2-C-VS-MY-2-C-VS-ZL-2-C-VS-HZ-2-C | 0.15 | 0.43 | |||
| HY-3-C-VS-MY-3-C-VS-ZL-3-C-VS-HZ-3-C | 0.04 | * | 0.10 | ||
| HY-4-C-VS-MY-4-C-VS-ZL-4-C-VS-HZ-4-C | 0.09 | 0.42 | |||
| HY-2-A-VS-HY-3-A-VS-HY-4-A | 0.02 | * | 0.62 | ||
| MY-2-A-VS-MY-3-A-VS-MY-4-A | 0.04 | * | 0.11 | ||
| ZL-2-A-VS-ZL-3-A-VS-ZL-4-A | 0.01 | * | 0.87 | ||
| HY-2-A-VS-MY-2-A-VS-ZL-2-A | 0.01 | ** | 0.21 | ||
| HY-3-A-VS-MY-3-A-VS-ZL-3-A | 0.25 | 0.10 | |||
| HY-4-A-VS-MY-4-A-VS-ZL-4-A | 0.54 | 0.78 | |||
FIGURE 7The non-metric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) of fungal (A) and bacterial (B) community compositions.
The Anosim test of fungal and bacterial community compositions.
| Groups | Fungal | Bacterial | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rvalue | Pvalue | Significant | Rvalue | Pvalue | Significant | |
| HY-2-A-vs-HY-2-C | 0.20 | 0.08 | 0.36 | 0.04 | * | |
| HY-3-A-vs-HY-3-C | 0.00 | 0.32 | 0.04 | 0.34 | ||
| HY-4-A-vs-HY-4-C | 0.49 | 0.01 | * | −0.10 | 0.69 | |
| MY-2-A-vs-MY-2-C | 0.36 | 0.01 | ** | 0.06 | 0.26 | |
| MY-3-A-vs-MY-3-C | 0.56 | 0.01 | ** | 0.11 | 0.23 | |
| MY-4-A-vs-MY-4-C | 0.74 | 0.01 | * | 0.72 | 0.01 | * |
| ZL-2-A-vs-ZL-2-C | −0.12 | 0.73 | 0.00 | 0.36 | ||
| ZL-3-A-vs-ZL-3-C | 0.03 | 0.31 | 0.13 | 0.14 | ||
| ZL-4-A-vs-ZL-4-C | 0.18 | 0.11 | 0.00 | 0.47 | ||
| HY-1-C-vs-HY-2-C-vs-HY-3-C-vs-HY-4-C | 0.43 | 0.00 | ** | 0.10 | 0.11 | |
| MY-1-C-vs-MY-2-C-vs-MY-3-C-vs-MY-4-C | 0.33 | 0.00 | ** | 0.25 | 0.01 | * |
| ZL-1-C-vs-ZL-2-C-vs-ZL-3-C-vs-ZL-4-C | 0.35 | 0.00 | ** | 0.21 | 0.00 | ** |
| HZ-1-C-vs-HZ-2-C-vs-HZ-3-C-vs-HZ-4-C | 0.17 | 0.05 | * | 0.19 | 0.01 | * |
| HY-1-C-vs-MY-1-C-vs-ZL-1-C-vs-HZ-1-C | 0.34 | 0.00 | ** | 0.09 | 0.09 | |
| HY-2-C-vs-MY-2-C-vs-ZL-2-C-vs-HZ-2-C | 0.44 | 0.00 | ** | 0.37 | 0.00 | ** |
| HY-3-C-vs-MY-3-C-vs-ZL-3-C-vs-HZ-3-C | 0.49 | 0.00 | ** | 0.25 | 0.00 | ** |
| HY-4-C-vs-MY-4-C-vs-ZL-4-C-vs-HZ-4-C | 0.42 | 0.00 | ** | 0.30 | 0.00 | ** |
| HY-2-A-vs-HY-3-A-vs-HY-4-A | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.26 | 0.02 | * | |
| MY-2-A-vs-MY-3-A-vs-MY-4-A | 0.25 | 0.02 | * | 0.42 | 0.01 | ** |
| ZL-2-A-vs-ZL-3-A-vs-ZL-4-A | 0.25 | 0.02 | * | 0.37 | 0.00 | ** |
| HY-2-A-vs-MY-2-A-vs-ZL-2-A | 0.40 | 0.00 | ** | 0.00 | 0.47 | |
| HY-3-A-vs-MY-3-A-vs-ZL-3-A | 0.08 | 0.15 | 0.49 | 0.00 | ** | |
| HY-4-A-vs-MY-4-A-vs-ZL-4-A | 0.11 | 0.08 | 0.50 | 0.00 | ** | |
FIGURE 8The main nutritional types of fungi of diseased potato tubers at the level of trophic (A) and guild (B) classification.
FIGURE 9The main metabolic pathways of bacteria of diseased potato tubers (A) and test between group “A” and group “C” (B,C), and the function of top10 (D).
FIGURE 10The Co-occurrence network between Pathogens and antagonistic microbe of diseased potato tuber [fungi (A), bacteria (B), fungi and bacteria (C)].