| Literature DB >> 36180825 |
Rongbo Sa1, Song He1, Dongdong Han1, Mengjiao Liu1, Yunxia Yu1, Rongen Shang1, Meimei Song2.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: S. miltiorrhiza root rot is a soil-borne disease mainly caused by Fusarium solani and Fusarium oxysporum, which has spread rapidly in China in recent years. To reduce the amount of pesticides to control this plant fungal disease, biological control using endophytic bacteria is a promising method. Many endophytic bacteria show good biocontrol potential against various plant fungal diseases. The aims of this study were to isolate and identify endophytic bacteria with antifungal activity from Salvia miltiorrhiza plant tissue. In order to increase antifungal substances production, the culture conditions of the isolated DS-R5 strain were optimized through response surface methodology.Entities:
Keywords: Antifungal substance; Biocontrol bacteria; Isolation and identification; Optimization; Response surface methodology; Salvia miltiorrhiza root rot
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36180825 PMCID: PMC9524000 DOI: 10.1186/s12866-022-02628-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Microbiol ISSN: 1471-2180 Impact factor: 4.465
Factors and levels of PB design
| Factors | Level | |
|---|---|---|
| -1 | + 1 | |
| A: medium volume (ml) | 50 | 70 |
| B: initial pH | 5.0 | 7.0 |
| C: inoculum size (%) | 1.5 | 2.5 |
| D: fermentation time (d) | 6.0 | 8.0 |
| E: rotary speed (rpm) | 120 | 180 |
| F: fermentation temperature (°C) | 25 | 35 |
Factors and levels of CCD
| Factors | Level | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| -1.682 | -1 | 0 | + 1 | + 1.682 | |
| A: medium volume (ml) | 43 | 50 | 60 | 70 | 77 |
| B: initial pH | 4.3 | 5.0 | 6.0 | 7.0 | 7.7 |
| F: fermentation temperature (°C) | 21.6 | 25 | 30 | 35 | 38.4 |
Antagonistic effect of endophytic bacteria from S. miltiorrhiza against F. solani
| Source of strain | Strain code | Width of inhibitory zone (mm) |
|---|---|---|
| DS-R5 | 20.5 ± 1.9a | |
| DS-R12 | 13.4 ± 1.4d | |
| Root | DS-R18 | 16.8 ± 1.1b |
| DS-R25 | 9.2 ± 0.7e | |
| DS-R29 | 9.5 ± 0.9e | |
| DS-R31 | 15.9 ± 2.5c | |
DS-S4 DS-S6 DS-S7 DS-S11 DS-S14 | 14.7 ± 1.2b 18.1 ± 2.0b 7.4 ± 1.1j 7.9 ± 1.3i 12.6 ± 1.7 g | |
DS-S6 DS-S7 | 18.1 ± 2.0a 7.4 ± 1.1j | |
| Stem | DS-S7 | 7.4 ± 1.1d |
| DS-S11 | 7.9 ± 1.3d 12.6 ± 1.7 g | |
| DS-S14 | 12.6 ± 1.7c | |
| Leaf | DS-L3 DS-L5 | 14.8 ± 2.3a |
| DS-L5 | 12.1 ± 1.9b |
Note: Data are mean ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test
Fig. 1Morphological characteristics of the DS-R5 strain
Physiological and biochemical properties of the DS-R5 strain
| Property | Result | Property | Result |
|---|---|---|---|
| Glucose | + | Amylo hydrolysis | + |
| Glycerol | + | Catalase | + |
| Oxidase | - | Casein hydrolysis | + |
| Succinate | - | V-P reaction | + |
| Anaerobic | + | Citrate utilization uuuutilization | - |
| Nitrate-reducing | + | H2S production | - |
| Isinglass Hydrolysis | + | Tolerance to NaCl | < 5% |
Note: “ + ” positive; “-” negative
Fig. 2The phylogenetic tree of the DS-R5 strain based on 16S rRNA gene sequencing
Fig. 3The phylogenetic tree of the DS-R5 strain based on gyrB gene sequencing
Inhibitory effects of the DS-R5 strain on eight plant pathogens
| Pathogenic fungi | Width of inhibitory zone (mm) | Pathogenic fungi | Width of inhibitory zone (mm) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20.5 ± 1.9 b | 17.8 ± 2.6 c | ||
| 21.2 ± 3.1 a | 6.5 ± 0.8 g | ||
| 15.9 ± 2.1 d | 13.1 ± 1.7 e | ||
| 7.9 ± 1.1 f | 12.8 ± 1.3 e |
Note: Data are mean ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test
Control efficacy of the DS-R5 strain against S. miltiorrhiza root rot
| Treatment | Disease index | Control efficacy (%) |
|---|---|---|
| Healthy control group | 6.7 ± 1.2 c | - |
| Pathogenic control group | 60.5 ± 7.2 a | - |
| Treatment group | 26.3 ± 5. 9b | 61.4 ± 8.1 |
Note: Different lowercase letters in the same column indicate significant differences at the P < 0.05 level by Duncan’s new multiple range test
Fig. 4Standard curve for measuring antifungal substance titer
Fig. 5Results of one‑factor‑at‑a‑time experiments. Effect of (A) initial pH, (B) medium volume, (C) fermentation time, (D) inoculum size, (E) rotary speed and (F) fermentation temperature on antifungal substance titer
Design and results of PB experiments
| Runs | A | B | C | D | E | F | Titer (mg/l) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Experimental | Predicted | |||||||
| 1 | 40(-1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 1.5(-1) | 6(-1) | 120(-1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 4200 | 4237 |
| 2 | 60(+ 1) | 5.0(-1) | 1.5(-1) | 6(-1) | 180(+ 1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 3048 | 2986 |
| 3 | 40(-1) | 5.0(-1) | 1.5(-1) | 6(-1) | 120(-1) | 25.0(-1) | 3133 | 3061 |
| 4 | 60 (+ 1) | 5.0(-1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 6(-1) | 120(-1) | 25.0(-1) | 2333 | 2380 |
| 5 | 60 (+ 1) | 5.0(-1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 8(+ 1) | 120(-1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 2667 | 2699 |
| 6 | 40 (-1) | 5.0(-1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 8(+ 1) | 180(+ 1) | 25.0(-1) | 3267 | 3188 |
| 7 | 60 (+ 1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 1.5(-1) | 8(+ 1) | 120(-1) | 25.0(-1) | 2600 | 2512 |
| 8 | 40 (-1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 8(+ 1) | 120(-1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 3867 | 3926 |
| 9 | 60 (+ 1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 6(-1) | 180(+ 1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 3200 | 3278 |
| 10 | 60 (+ 1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 1.5(-1) | 8(+ 1) | 180(+ 1) | 25.0(-1) | 3000 | 2943 |
| 11 | 40 (-1) | 5.0(-1) | 1.5(-1) | 8(+ 1) | 180(+ 1) | 35.0(+ 1) | 3667 | 3602 |
| 12 | 40 (-1) | 7.0(+ 1) | 2.5(+ 1) | 6(-1) | 180(+ 1) | 25.0(-1) | 3333 | 3302 |
Analysis of data generated using PB design
| Coded variable | Variable | Coefficient estimate | Significance | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intercept | Constant | 3192.9 | 65.93 | 0.000 | *** |
| A | medium volume | -384.9 | -7.85 | 0.001 | *** |
| B | initial pH | 173.8 | 3.59 | 0.016 | * |
| C | inoculum size | -81.8 | -1.69 | 0.152 | |
| D | fermentation time | -14.9 | -0.31 | 0.771 | |
| E | rotary speed | 59.6 | 1.23 | 0.273 | |
| F | fermentation temperature | 248.6 | 5.13 | 0.004 | ** |
Note:
*Significant at the P < 0.05 level
**Significant at the P < 0.01 level
*** Significant at the P < 0.001 level
Steepest ascent path experimental design and results
| Test | medium volume (ml) | initial pH | fermentation temperature (°C) | Titer (mg/l) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 60 | 6.0 | 30.0 | 6363 |
| 2 | 55 | 6.5 | 31.0 | 6889 |
| 3 | 50 | 7.0 | 32.0 | 7467 |
| 4 | 45 | 7.5 | 33.0 | 7148 |
| 5 | 40 | 8.0 | 34.0 | 6422 |
| 6 | 35 | 8.5 | 35.0 | 5012 |
| 7 | 30 | 9.0 | 36.0 | 4566 |
Experimental design and response values from CCD
| Run | Factors | Titer (mg/l) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A:medium volume (ml) | B:initial pH | F:fermentation temperature (°C) | Experimantal | Predicted | |
| 1 | + 1.682(58) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 6199 | 6235 |
| 2 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7470 | 7398 |
| 3 | + 1(55) | -1(6.5) | + 1(33) | 5990 | 6026 |
| 4 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7691 | 7639 |
| 5 | + 1(55) | -1(6.5) | -1(31) | 5782 | 5814 |
| 6 | -1(45) | -1(6.5) | -1(31) | 5733 | 5688 |
| 7 | -1.682(42) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 5720 | 5673 |
| 8 | 0(50) | -1.682(6.2) | 0(32) | 6132 | 6185 |
| 9 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | -1.682(30.3) | 5619 | 5725 |
| 10 | + 1(55) | + 1(7.5) | -1(31) | 6353 | 6279 |
| 11 | -1(45) | + 1(7.5) | -1(31) | 5561 | 5607 |
| 12 | + 1(55) | + 1(7.5) | + 1(33) | 6899 | 6823 |
| 13 | -1(45) | + 1(7.5) | + 1(33) | 5886 | 5936 |
| 14 | 0(50) | + 1.682(7.8) | 0(32) | 6341 | 6281 |
| 15 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | + 1.682(33.7) | 6058 | 6090 |
| 16 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7900 | 7983 |
| 17 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7863 | 7793 |
| 18 | -1(45) | -1(6.5) | + 1(33) | 5659 | 5588 |
| 19 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7893 | 7953 |
| 20 | 0(50) | 0(7.0) | 0(32) | 7937 | 8025 |
ANOVA analysis for CCD regression equations
| Source | Sum of squares | Df | Mean square | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Model | 15206097 | 9 | 1689566 | 57.29 | 0.000*** |
| A | 654877 | 1 | 654877 | 22.21 | 0.001** |
| B | 260592 | 1 | 260592 | 8.84 | 0.014* |
| F | 222534 | 1 | 222534 | 7.55 | 0.021* |
| A2 | 5742543 | 1 | 5742543 | 194.73 | 0.000*** |
| B2 | 4098925 | 1 | 4098925 | 139.00 | 0.000*** |
| F2 | 6547266 | 1 | 6547266 | 222.02 | 0.000*** |
| AB | 253828 | 1 | 253828 | 8.61 | 0.015* |
| AF | 31626 | 1 | 31626 | 1.07 | 0.325 |
| BF | 67896 | 1 | 67896 | 2.30 | 0.160 |
| Residual | 294893 | 10 | 29489 | ||
| Lack of Fit | 133078 | 5 | 26616 | 0.82 | 0.582 |
| Pure error | 161815 | 5 | 32363 | ||
| Cor total | 1915500990 | 19 |
R2 = 0.9810, adjusted R2 = 0.9639, predicted R2 = 0.9186
Note:
*Significant at the P < 0.05 level
**Significant at the P < 0.01 level
*** Significant at the P < 0.001 level
Fig. 6Response surface curve and corresponding contour plot of the effect of three variables on antifungal substance titer. A interaction of medium volume and initial pH; B interaction of medium volume and fermentation temperature; C interaction of initial pH and fermentation temperature
Fig. 7The HPLC and the antifungal activity result of the isolated substances
Fig. 8Antagonistic effect of DS-R5 strain on some pathogenic fungi